Now THIS is how you discuss Calvinism from a scholarly exegetical perspective. Too many emotional rhetoric on RUclips about anti-Calvinism; they are demonic, there’re not saved they are arrogant and on and on and on. Total waste of emotional energy. Although I’ve been leaning Calvinism for a while now, I’m perfectly happy being persuaded otherwise. BUT you must come at me intelligently and you Mr. leighton, are a breath of fresh air. Brilliantly done. God bless. Subscribed 👍
Nice to see all the ways, as Calvinist too discuss non calvinist doctrine in many ways sometimes with pride arrogance and I know better than you, personal insults, dismissive, telling the other side what they believe, instead of listening to what they say they believe, and others with love and respect, it goes both ways.
In Revelation 2:21, Jesus said He gave Jezebel space to repent, but she would not. He put the total blame of her unrepentance on her. But Calvinism teaches that God is the one responsible. I believe I'll keep trusting Jesus and the Bible instead of Calvinism.
I found Remnant Radio because of Dr. Leighton Flowers… God has decreed me as a Leightonist 😭😂 lol for real though, grateful to the Lord for giving us exactly what we needed. A deep thinker in the middle (biblical truth) of the spectrum. It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other… I almost walked away from my faith due to Calvinist attempting to convert me. But I stayed in the word, and in doing so, I found Leighton Flowers. God bless you all. 🙏🏼💯
I feel like I can breathe now. Just like one of you said, the spiritual pressure of searching out the soteriology of Calvinism is pretty heavy, and this conversation helped lift that weight. Thank you.
Wow someone recommended listening to Dr. Leighton on Andrew Farley's channel and I am no theologian I only know my own testimony is that God Loves (unconditionally) or I would have died and been in hell forever more times than I could count and a few I am certain of, but His grace and mercy lead me to know Him and love Him above everything and everyone, no matter the circumstances I find myself in. God did it ALL and I just believed. So not sure about any of these heavy debates but I will continue to let Holy Spirit teach me how to love more like Jesus everyday, and if I spend my time with HIM, I know where that leads as I have 21 years of being taught by God's Holy Spirit and not men. What I know is the greatest of these is LOVE. I since a lot of a lack of peace in some of the debating here. Love should always be the motive behind what we say. Sounds simple but it has transformed my thinking and my life and that was no small thing. Love and Peace to you all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
True ,and for love you have to have a genuine free will to choose freely or you can't have love , you would have to call it something else with anything less than that . Peace out
I grew up (very near where Dr. Flowers grew up) the son of a Calvinist mother and an Arminian father. I sided with my mother (and her mother) because Calvinism seemed more "intellectual." A Baptist preacher I encountered in 1971 set me straight on what Biblical soteriology was, and I was released by the Holy Spirit from Calvinism into the arms of a loving Father who loves all and desires all to be saved. Like Dr. Flowers, I attended a small Southern Baptist college in west Texas (not Hardin-Simmons), but unlike Dr. Flowers, I found professors who helped me understand that there is a traditional view of Scripture that is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian. I had been a Calvinist for nearly 24 years, and by the way, later my mother came out of Calvinism at the age of 64 and served the Lord under true soteriology for the next 31 years of her life.
@@marklar2012 The Bible does not say who specifically was elected or when that election occurred. You are gambling your soul on presuppositions you have approached the Bible with.
@@davemitchell116 It does teach that as clearly as for example on deity of Christ. Who?Christians were elected. When? Before the foundation of earth. All contained in one verse Eph. 1:4
I would start by reminding you, that it was NOT CALVIN who said - “I lay down My life for THE SHEEP”! [John 10:11] Again it wasn’t Calvin who said, “No man CAN COME to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW HIM”! [John 6:44] Neither said he - “AS MANY as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed”! [Acts 13:48] Now I want to make it very clear that we use the term “Calvinism” ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, and are NOT IN AGREEMENT with all that Calvin taught. That Calvin contributed a lot to the system that bares his name we do not deny. But even though we may quote a few things from the works of Calvin, our appeal is NOT TO CALVIN OR ANY CONFESSIONS OR CREEDS OF THE CHURCHES, BUT TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY OF LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. Historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead. Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of a mere MAN - John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and the conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our OWN EXEGESIS AND EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS THE FIVE POINTS. If John Calvin believed what the Spirit of God has taught us in our personal study of God’s Word and our experience in our preaching ministry, then good for him! But it means NOTHING TO US! We be persuaded that the Spirit of God would have by and by taught us these glorious truths WHETHER THERE WAS A CALVIN OR NOT! No infant comes into the world knowing everything, but learns as he grows! Even so a truly born again child of God may have many misconceptions concerning the nature and method of his salvation at first, but if he is saved at all, then the Spirit will by and by teach him what He means when He says that “It is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that showeth mercy”! [Romans 9:16] “But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day”! [Proverbs 4:18] Whatever glorifies God 100%, THAT is what is right! The doctrines of grace which we hold gives God ALL THE GLORY and puts man where He belongs, i.e. IN THE DUST! “Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1] You are either an Arminian or a Calvinist! You either believe that Salvation is ALL OF GOD, or you believe that it is partly of God and partly of man! There is NO MIDDLE GROUND! Those who pretend that they are neither Arminians nor “Calvinists” are in reality hypocrites! They suppose that they are neutral! But in matters pertaining to the doctrines of Soteriology (salvation) there are NO NEUTRALS! NOBODY IS NEUTRAL! EVERYBODY HAS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST! Only ONE side can be right and only ONE side can be wrong, so in claiming to be neutral and pretending to see right and wrong on both sides, the neutral puts himself above everybody. He is the most righteous of all. He can see how everybody’s a little bit wrong but him and he is the only one right-the only one who really sees the truth, which he claims is somewhere in-between, which makes him the worst liar and most treacherous enemy of all! As Jesus said “He that is not for Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” [Matthew 12:30] You either believe fallen man is totally depraved and CANNOT come to God of his own ‘free-will’ or you don’t! [John 6:44] You either believe God has elected a CERTAIN NUMBER and sovereignly ordained them to eternal life or you don’t! [Acts 13:48] You either believe that Christ laid down His life FOR THE SHEEP and them alone, as he said He did, or you don’t! [John 10:15] You either believe that the Holy Spirit DRAWS God’s chosen by an IRRESISTIBLE POWER or you don’t! [Jeremiah 31:3] And finally you either believe Christ saves FULLY AND FINALLY those whom He died for unto the end or you don’t! [Hebrews 7:25] There is no MIDDLE GROUND HERE! I know what have written might sound harsh and ‘un-loving’, but “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the TRUTH”?! [Galatians 4:16]. If you choose to believe that fallen, depraved man has a ‘free-will’ to either accept or reject Christ, and that the spiritually dead man can respond to God’s call anytime HE chooses, you are free to do so. But I believe that if you are TRULY SAVED by the Spirit of God and have ‘the root of the matter in you’ [Job 19:28] then God will sooner or later open your eyes to the truth of that word - “it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy”!! [Romans 9:16]. Please know that I shall be praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of His absolute sovereignty and show you that our God is STILL the Absolute Sovereign who has ‘mercy on WHOM HE WILL and hardens WHOM HE WILL and NONE can say unto Him “what doest Thou”?! [Daniel 4:35] John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
Dave you know that in the Reformed - Augustinian tradition that you can believe God desires all to be saved? Same with universal atonement. I believe God desires all to be saved as well.
"How do you submit your theology to your church?" is an ick question. We're called to submit our theology to God. Not about to adjust theology to fit a church. HOW one presents what one believes is one thing, but adjusting to please a church is another story.
John Trevett Romans 11:26 And so ALL ISRAEL will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; This would then mean that every single Israelite will be saved? It is obvious not!!! Many places in Scripture use the Word All Men for Not Only Jews but also other nations or “all kind of” there is a difference in the Greek. John 12:32 And if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to Myself.” The word in the Greek for all here is πάντας (pantas) whose root is πᾶς (pas). says of πᾶς: When used without the articles, it means, "every kind or variety." When used with the article, it means "whole or the totality of persons or things referred to." Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Friberg) Without the article… with distributive significance, denoting each individual in a class The word all in the verse has no article so it means "ALL KINDS OF MEN", so it isn't talking about every single man (universalism), it just denotes a broad spectrum. The notes of the translators in the Dutch Bible are correct [allen tot Mij Dat is, niet alleen de Joden, maar ook de heidenen, die in mij zullen geloven; Joh. 2:14,15. he drove THEM ALL out of the temple. Judas betrayal was prophesied Do you really think he could have not betrayed the Lord Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’ In Romans 3:23 πάντες pantes IS NOT THE SAME Romans 11: 15 For if their being CAST AWAY [ Not walked away]is the reconciling of the world, what will their ACCEPTANCE be but life from the dead? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part HAS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL until the FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES has come in. 26 And so ALL Israel will be saved, as it is written: All here means from every tribe and not everyone. Which of course is clear from the word SAVED
@@MariusVanWoerden One of many mistakes you and all calvinist seem to make is that if one is not a calvinist they are an arminian. Different sides to the same false theological coin. Context is required when interpreting scripture and one thing I've realized in all my study is two things that never go together... calvinism and context.
15:20 Honestly, it would be really hard to not tell my brothers about the problems with Calvinism if I were at a church promoting it. When I came out of Calvinism it was a truly great feeling.
Leighton has anyone not calling Calvinists Brothers in Christ thrown from Soteriology 101 ! If he believed Calvinism was not of God then how are those " In Calvinism " his brothers and if they are is Leighton simply complaining about the wallpaper color in Reform Churches ?
@@philagon Does God not supply us with joy upon proper revelation? Or is the key to Christianity being in pain in the truth. The frozen chosen! Pain does not = Truth. Something is not MORE TRUE because it is awful. John 8:32
@@alexz2702 Interesting that you can only process the scriptures through a lens of pleasure or pain. Perhaps you should focus on what they mean instead.
Yes Abel you are right Calvin brought us out to the Gospel against the pope's Salvation by Works. and of course that is NOT A gospel Now Leighton and his friends are bringing us back to the SELF HELP anti Gospel anti Bible message
@@MariusVanWoerden False , Reformers all remain in " the total Depravity " cesspool of Romes " council of Orange the Goths presided over , Augustine , Monks , Mani , & Babylon !
@@kevinpeterson346 www.openbible.info/topics/total_depravity Calvin did nothing but going back to Scripture and the EARLY church writings of them who were next generation to the Apostles
@@albusai That is a convenient presupposition. Your assertion means that you've already decided Dr. White would be wrong without testing it against scripture (Acts 17:11). As Christians, we're to check any doctrine against the whole of scripture prayerfully and rightly to come to a conclusion. It would be just as wrong to say Dr. Flowers is blinded unless you check what he believes against scripture. A cordial, biblical debate gives Christians a chance to examine these doctrines. Saying Dr. White is blinded by a simple assertion is an ad hominem attack.
@@explodingrubberducky797 James White has debated Leighton Flowers before; concerning Romans 9. Dr. Flowers changed the whole nature of the debate and this was unfair to Dr. White. Yet Dr. Flowers continues to reference Dr. White in many of his videos and on his site. Dr. White has discussed total depravity before, as other Christians have with Dr. Flowers, but after a time it gets tiring repeating your views from scripture and the other side doesn't believe it. I'm sure Dr. Flowers feels the same way, so debating becomes fruitless at some point because it isn't about sharpening one another, but who is more "right" than Biblical. (Plus, we have to take in consideration preparing a debate is not an overnight thing; you have to plan a date, a time, a moderator, etc. based on both of their schedules. Sometimes it's just not possible to do.)
Excellent discussion! I have been wrestling with the whole predestination/Calvinism question recently and this episode was precisely what I have been looking for. I started with Heiser and his example of the 1st Samuel 23 story with Saul's exploits in doing away with David. While that solved the issue from a pure logic perspective, I was looking for a more direct theological argument against predestination. So, Thank you, Dr. Flowers; you provided that in spades!
Brother, people can walk and chew bubblegum. In two days I’m going to have a conversation with some Mormons. Yet today I’ll have a conversation about Christianity. Because maybe you haven’t come to a conclusion, but doctrine matters. It has real practical implications.
"First we may call this doctrine(Calvinism) a novelty, seeing that for the first four hundred years after christ there is no mention of it. The first foundations for it were in the writings of Augustine, who, in his warring against Pelagius, let fall some expressions which some have unhappily picked up to the establishment of this error."- Quaker Theologian Robert Barclay
Arminius was of course Calvinist as he was a devoted learned son of Geneva. The split between camps occurred after Calvin's death, when Beza was more or less in charge. Later on, Arminianism vs Calvinism became the black vs white issue that it remains to this very day. It's largely a matter of convenience, a kind of classic boxing match a la Pelagius vs Augustine, as we like to put clear distinctions on things so that we can compare and contrast them. Oddly, the debate conforms to the kind of dialectics that the German philosophers, even Marx, engaged in, similar to the Socialism vs Capitalism debate. Of course, there are very important issues involved, and they are truly at odds, but as Dr. Flowers points out, the answer is neither. There is a third option which isn't even being looked at.
So where is God in your theology or better yet where is God in your reality.? Do you only know about Him? Do you know Him ??? Do you know more about Calvinism and Arminianism? Who cares? What can you tell me about Christ?
@@rosehammer9482 Sister Rose. I can quote countless verses from memory, such is my devotion to the holy Book and her author. Do you want to challenge me to a duel? Might I challenge thee? Thou hast besmirched mine honor.
@@TheRemnantRadio - I mean one who holds on to the fundamental truths of God word's especially in the age of liberal thought and liberal enlightenment. This was best expressed through a series of books edited by RA Torrey going over basic truths that had been questioned: Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, internal evidences of John, doctrine of sin and atonement, etc.
I am a non Calvinist .... the part of this video where you all were talking about how forceful Calvinist are and how they think we are almost occultic. I can’t help but believe that they are the ones that are occultic. I can’t help but think that they believe in a God that is not found in the Bible. What do you say about this?
I would start by reminding you, that it was NOT CALVIN who said - “I lay down My life for THE SHEEP”! [John 10:11] Again it wasn’t Calvin who said, “No man CAN COME to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW HIM”! [John 6:44] Neither said he - “AS MANY as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed”! [Acts 13:48] Now I want to make it very clear that we use the term “Calvinism” ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, and are NOT IN AGREEMENT with all that Calvin taught. That Calvin contributed a lot to the system that bares his name we do not deny. But even though we may quote a few things from the works of Calvin, our appeal is NOT TO CALVIN OR ANY CONFESSIONS OR CREEDS OF THE CHURCHES, BUT TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY OF LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. Historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead. Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of a mere MAN - John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and the conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our OWN EXEGESIS AND EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS THE FIVE POINTS. If John Calvin believed what the Spirit of God has taught us in our personal study of God’s Word and our experience in our preaching ministry, then good for him! But it means NOTHING TO US! We be persuaded that the Spirit of God would have by and by taught us these glorious truths WHETHER THERE WAS A CALVIN OR NOT! No infant comes into the world knowing everything, but learns as he grows! Even so a truly born again child of God may have many misconceptions concerning the nature and method of his salvation at first, but if he is saved at all, then the Spirit will by and by teach him what He means when He says that “It is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that showeth mercy”! [Romans 9:16] “But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day”! [Proverbs 4:18] Whatever glorifies God 100%, THAT is what is right! The doctrines of grace which we hold gives God ALL THE GLORY and puts man where He belongs, i.e. IN THE DUST! “Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1] You are either an Arminian or a Calvinist! You either believe that Salvation is ALL OF GOD, or you believe that it is partly of God and partly of man! There is NO MIDDLE GROUND! Those who pretend that they are neither Arminians nor “Calvinists” are in reality hypocrites! They suppose that they are neutral! But in matters pertaining to the doctrines of Soteriology (salvation) there are NO NEUTRALS! NOBODY IS NEUTRAL! EVERYBODY HAS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST! Only ONE side can be right and only ONE side can be wrong, so in claiming to be neutral and pretending to see right and wrong on both sides, the neutral puts himself above everybody. He is the most righteous of all. He can see how everybody’s a little bit wrong but him and he is the only one right-the only one who really sees the truth, which he claims is somewhere in-between, which makes him the worst liar and most treacherous enemy of all! As Jesus said “He that is not for Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” [Matthew 12:30] You either believe fallen man is totally depraved and CANNOT come to God of his own ‘free-will’ or you don’t! [John 6:44] You either believe God has elected a CERTAIN NUMBER and sovereignly ordained them to eternal life or you don’t! [Acts 13:48] You either believe that Christ laid down His life FOR THE SHEEP and them alone, as he said He did, or you don’t! [John 10:15] You either believe that the Holy Spirit DRAWS God’s chosen by an IRRESISTIBLE POWER or you don’t! [Jeremiah 31:3] And finally you either believe Christ saves FULLY AND FINALLY those whom He died for unto the end or you don’t! [Hebrews 7:25] There is no MIDDLE GROUND HERE! I know what have written might sound harsh and ‘un-loving’, but “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the TRUTH”?! [Galatians 4:16]. If you choose to believe that fallen, depraved man has a ‘free-will’ to either accept or reject Christ, and that the spiritually dead man can respond to God’s call anytime HE chooses, you are free to do so. But I believe that if you are TRULY SAVED by the Spirit of God and have ‘the root of the matter in you’ [Job 19:28] then God will sooner or later open your eyes to the truth of that word - “it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy”!! [Romans 9:16]. Please know that I shall be praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of His absolute sovereignty and show you that our God is STILL the Absolute Sovereign who has ‘mercy on WHOM HE WILL and hardens WHOM HE WILL and NONE can say unto Him “what doest Thou”?! [Daniel 4:35] John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
God wants to be reconciled to the world... 2 Corinthians 5:19 salvation is for all who believe...he came to save the world “God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.” John 3:17 Your God chose people before time to be saved “the elect”.... left the rest of them with out any hope.....John 3:16 is a lie if your god is right... God holds out his hands all day wishing they would come to him... but they don’t believe.... that’s the facts... you quote scripture out of context.... the God of the Bible is fair and just and his call to salvation is a true call for all to come to him... your god just calls to everyone acting like he loves them when really he is playing a game knowing only the player he has picked will come to him... that’s sick and twisted
As a Bible Believeing Christian I agree with you. When you study Calvinism, the more you realize that they are in a totally different religion. They are not Christians. They hold their TULIP and theological systematic as their highest authority even over Scripture... to where they use the same Bible, but they twist and pervert it so much to where it becomes another Gospel. They believe in a pervertedGod, Jesus, Spirit and Gospel. In my opinion, they are in the snare of the devil and they are definitely not born again Christians. In order to be a Christian you have to believe in the true God, Jesus and Gospel... they sadly do not. They need to repent and come to Christ. 🙏 ❤️
We were encouraged to teach like a Calvinist and evangelise like an Arminian - I decided to stick to who I knew (Jesus) and so share Him and His Gospel instead. That stance has served me well, apart from those times when I found myself amongst Christians who were stoically one or the other. It has seemed to me that some place more importance in this subject than love.
I really wish Dr Flowers would explain the application or fruit manifest by these specific views. This is NOT about some intellectual exercise, this is about living life and relating to God, others and self yes? OK...so what are the fruits born from these views...what does it really matter?
I would say there is only good which can come from the love of the truth. If these things are new and go against what you have been taught or understand I am sure it is somewhat painful. Frankly though, it mainly concerns the way in which we define God's character. This straightens out how God is love and completely holy. And man is the author of his sins and for separating himself from God. Man is failing by his own freedom to do so. And God has, in His full sovereignty, made His image bearers to freely respond, or not, to His grace. This demonstrates man being fully responsible for his sin, and God only desiring and willing for men to come to a knowledge of the truth. God has not caused the evil, but only made a world where evil could manifest. By the freedom of men to walk away from His goodness. For evil is whatever is not embracing Gods will. The negation of the good which freely flows from who God is. And the fullness of His goodness is only fully known and manifested by the freedom to choose it. Which IS love. Embracing the gospel or testimony of Jesus and doing His commandments. By learning about and knowing God. Through scripture, prayer, and sharing the good news of the gospel. And when we choose that relationship we will be conformed to His image which plays out in keeping His commandments.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME --thoughtful response. yet everything you shared is what i have experienced in what Dr Flowers would label a "Calvinist pastor" my original question was not answered however...that being HOW do these different beliefs or interpretations of scripture manifest themselves in people's lives? Dr Flowers is correct when he says the Calvinist is not consistent, and then goes onto to explain how if view X was taken to fullness, it would mean Y. Only an extreme "hyper-Calvinist" lives that way...but these issues are important when handled properly. it is really apologetics to the church itself...which demands gentleness and love!
As he defends the free will.....it was already ara he is a Pelagian, because the man has freedom, not free will, besides he defends that the man is not born in sin.....help me man!! !! stick with the Bible. There are no sects that are not synergistic,,,,,,,,,,, only he didn't realize his heresy Marcos López
The Remnant Radio they’ve already debated, but I’m not sure James White is interested on truly understanding Provisionism, based on past interactions and episodes.
@@mrhartley85 - Based on JW's comments, I think he understands Provisionism just fine. He just rejects it as beneath him. At least, that's the sense I get. I can't blame him: Many of Leighton's ideas make no sense to me when run to their natural conclusion. Here's just one of many: - he cringes in horror at the thought of God knowingly and deliberately making hellbound men and *decreeing* them to hell - he's perfectly fine with God knowingly and deliberately making hellbound men but *allowing* them to go to hell. Ummmm... Is that not a distinction w/o a difference? Why couldn't God use His foresight and simply chosen 1) to not make those men; 2) have them die in infancy so they'd go to heaven. Yet He deliberately does not choose either of those options. He allows them to live full lives of rebellion. At that point, does it matter if they were "decreed" or "knowingly and intentionally allowed"? At least WLCraig will say (with a straight face) "Perhaps He couldn't have done otherwise" (in other words, "perhaps God isn't as omnipotent as He claims".)
What a carnal flesh feast watching 3 lovers of self glorying in their flesh-o-gesis scriptural interpretation methodology. Wells without water never quench the thirst of the elect.
Question, why would God at the hands of a believer, require the blood of an unbeliever that he wouldn't witness too, if God decrees who will be witnessed too, and saved?
Molinism is where it's at. Read William Lane Craig's Only Wise God and Kenneth Keathley's Salvation and Sovereignty. There are scholarly, biblically based alternatives to the Calvinist/Arminian dichotomy.
The best argument against total depravity is having kids and spending time with them. Innocent children do both bad things and good things. You have to be a monster to say your children are totally depraved (although it may feel like that at times lol)😅
Lol I have children and I love them to death but if i were to not teach them to be good and discipline them when they are bad they would kill each other over a toy. Have you ever noticed you don’t have to teach a child to lie or to be brutal to other children?
@ForGodsGlory yes, good job for noticing that kids do bad things. There is sin in people, but it's not TOTAL depravity, or else they would be incapable of doing good. It's the logic of total depravity that makes no sense when taken to this level.
@@abeautifulmoment2714 Don’t mistake total depravity for utter depravity. Remember no one does good not even one. The action and intention must be good and if it is not from faith and done to the glory of God is it really and truly good? If that’s the case I know a lot more good people than I do bad. How does it not make sense?
@ForGodsGlory Look up the definitions for "total" and "utter" - they are the same. This is why Calvinist isms are so strange. This is where it is good to have some biblical literacy. When it says "no-one does good" it does not mean LITERALLY no- one does good (it cannot, because objectively people do good things - and yes, often for honorable reasons! After all, you are made in the image of God and he created humans to be good.) Its just that we have sin IN us, and we need to be redeemed of it - however, that does not make us ALL good or ALL bad (your comment implies it's an all or nothing thing.) The Bible never says once a righteous work is only righteous if it brings God glory. However, it does say all people sin (so none are righteous completely) and we all need a savior because of it. This, however, does not mean that there wasn't SOME good in us to begin with!
@@abeautifulmoment2714 I’m not referring to the words I’m referring to the doctrines. They are different. It actually does mean that none do good…. Not even one. Our most righteous works are like filthy rags before God. No we really don’t people could do many things that may seem good with intentions that are wicked even if to you it doesn’t seem like it and honorable to who? And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. Yes He did create man upright then Adam fell. Righteous completely? Your either righteous or not there is no kinda righteous. There was good to begin with but that was in Adam.
Dr. Flowers speaking intermittently from 54:19 to 56:44: "My position is, I think it (Molinism) is a sufficient philosophical answer to the issue of omniscience and free will. I don't think it is a necessary explanation. In other words, I don't think in order to be a theologian, to read your Bible, you have to adopt Molinism... It's named after Luis Molina ... it's basically a philosophical explanation of how God's ominiscience works...There's a thing called 'middle knowledge' which is God knows all possible contingencies, all possible worlds... God knows not only what you will do, He also knows everything you could do given different situations and circumstances... And so it's explaining how God has sovereignly, in His foreknowledge and knowledge of all things, can still bring about a world with libertarian free creatures who have the ability to make free, self-determined choices ... and so it's a philosophical explanation of how that works...There's other philosophies like Boethius - The Consolation of Philosophy written in the 5th century was the most predominant philosophy of most theologians who held to libertarian free will and ominiscience. It's what C.S. Lewis proposed and I actually agree more with that perspective. Again, I don't think it's a necessary position either, but I think it is sufficient to explain how God can be ominiscient but not deterministic. Whereas the Calvinist ultimately says ominiscience demands determinism, and I just don't think that it rational." Response: Regarding the three persons mentioned in this passage, in historical chronological order, they are: 1. Boethius: (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) "Roman statesman and philosopher, often styled 'the last of the Romans', regarded by tradition as a Christian martyr, born at Rome in 480; died at Pavia in 524 or 525. .. The local cult of Boethius at Pavia was sanctioned when, in 1883, the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed the custom prevailing in that diocese of honouring St. Severinus Boethius, on the 23rd of October." In other words, Boethius is permitted by the Catholic Church to be venerated as a local saint in Pavia, Italy. 2. Luis de Molina: (from Wikipedia) "...(29 September 1535 - 12 October 1600) was a Spanish Jesuit priest and scholastic, a staunch defender of free will in the controversy over human liberty and God's grace. His theology is known as Molinism." 3. John Calvin: (from Wikipedia) " ...(10 July 1509 - 27 May 1564) was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation."
“Calvinism/Arminianism debate” Arminianism is a branch of Calvinism. It’s just Arminius Calvinism vs Beza Calvinism. Two sides of the same Augustinian Gnostic coin.
Calvinist often are astonished when non Calvinists say people can "have heard the gospel and have their sins atoned for by Christs death and resurrection" but not be saved or a believer. Non Calvinsts just mean, because of the freewill of man, given by God to the human family, can reject to " take hold" of the freely offered, currently paid in full on their behalf, offering of salvation. Which is only transacted upon their decision to lay hold of the free gift. Available, but waiting for the person to accept after hearing the call from Gods family, when they preach the good news and call to repentance and the forgiveness of sins by God to the broken and spiritually dead members of the human family.
I think what Calvinists are astonished at, is how non-Calvinists take the beautiful promises of what God has accomplished, is accomplishing and will accomplish in salvation and muddy it all by turning Christ's finished work on the cross into a potentiality which hinges on the will and desires of sinful man. I don't know who first came up with the horrendous analogy of salvation being some kind of *potential* bank transaction, but whoever it was deserves 40 minus 1 stripes. The Father's wrath was satisfied on the cross, that is what it means for Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice. The Father poured out the wrath that was due to sinners onto Christ and he paid the penalty for those sins. This didn't *potentially* happen, it *actually* happened. Christ's sacrifice in our place satisfies the wrath of The Father, so that His divine mercy does not compromise His justice. Because Christ died in our place we can have PEACE with God, hallelujah! See, the problem with making salvation a *potentiality* which is *available* but not a *certainty* is you completely destroy the message of the cross. For The Father to punish the Son and then punish the sinner on judgement day would be an injustice, we call that double-jeopardy. Either God's wrath was satisfied at Calvary or it wasn't. The Father did not *potentially* pour out His wrath and Christ did not *potentially* suffer and die. The non-Calvinist message of The cross becomes "God has done 99.9% of the work but he needs YOU to make it happen!" and I think the reason this horrible mistake get's made is that in this modern age we simply do not realise how wretched we are without Christ. I think if Non-Calvinists recognised the depth and breadth of their sinfulness they would not think to judge The Lord for choosing to save many and insist that He must instead attempt to save all.
Do you guys even read what you write? "Beautiful Promises of what God has accomplished, is accomplishing and will accomplish" "Which is only transacted upon their decision" And you guys are serious about that. I thought Jesus finished and sat down.
@@billyr9162 : Hi Billy R thank you for your reply, although I think perhaps I was not clear in my reply to jamie Russell. I agree 100% that Jesus finished and sat down at the right hand of The Father. My comment on God's promises and what he is accomplishing in present and future tense is in regard to Jesus building His church; people being saved daily. I believe that people today are being saved 100% based on God's choices and 0% based on man's "decision" to accept a "transaction".
@@christophersmith7412 Can you see at all where I be confused about what you're saying? At first you said it was man's decision to transact. Isn't a decision a choice? It seems as though you clearly have man as the deciding final factor in his salvation. Without man's decision, salvation won't happen. Can you say in a sentence exactly what Jesus finished? As I understand it Jesus is the last high priest the world will ever need and he is sitting down in the holy of holies and the only thing he's doing from now on is interceding for his people. The saving part is already done on the cross. That's what was finished. So the continuing to save thing is confusing to me.
Also, as an added note to all those who love John Calvin so much, may I remind you he was indeed very wrong on some matters. It might be a mistake to argue he was an exceptional scholar beyond compare. Here is a good example of questionable scholarship on his part: "Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex." - John Calvin
no-one was baptized in the name of Calvin and Calvin didn't suffer on the cross for anyone the moment he was condemned to death in France postumously he ran for Geneva .
Ok, so I opened this hoping to learn why Dr. Flowers is not a Calvinist, and 15 minutes in all I’ve heard is how divisive and “aggressive” Calvinists are and how “open minded” Arminians are.
@@JamesLee-pb6dl There are some "young Turk" reformed men out there beating their chests for sure; however, he oly needs to say it once or twice--I clicked on this video to learn what theological arguments he has with Calvinism.
Michael Lawlor not yet. But we would love to have him on. If you happen to know him, or you are just a fan of his work, let him know he has an open invitation on Remnant.
@@TheRemnantRadio I'm a big fan of his work, yes, but don't know him. He has a Facebook page, I can see if he can mail him there. He certainly wouldn't like to disappoint.
I would start by reminding you, that it was NOT CALVIN who said - “I lay down My life for THE SHEEP”! [John 10:11] Again it wasn’t Calvin who said, “No man CAN COME to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW HIM”! [John 6:44] Neither said he - “AS MANY as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed”! [Acts 13:48] Now I want to make it very clear that we use the term “Calvinism” ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, and are NOT IN AGREEMENT with all that Calvin taught. That Calvin contributed a lot to the system that bares his name we do not deny. But even though we may quote a few things from the works of Calvin, our appeal is NOT TO CALVIN OR ANY CONFESSIONS OR CREEDS OF THE CHURCHES, BUT TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY OF LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. Historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead. Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of a mere MAN - John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and the conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our OWN EXEGESIS AND EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS THE FIVE POINTS. If John Calvin believed what the Spirit of God has taught us in our personal study of God’s Word and our experience in our preaching ministry, then good for him! But it means NOTHING TO US! We be persuaded that the Spirit of God would have by and by taught us these glorious truths WHETHER THERE WAS A CALVIN OR NOT! No infant comes into the world knowing everything, but learns as he grows! Even so a truly born again child of God may have many misconceptions concerning the nature and method of his salvation at first, but if he is saved at all, then the Spirit will by and by teach him what He means when He says that “It is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that showeth mercy”! [Romans 9:16] “But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day”! [Proverbs 4:18] Whatever glorifies God 100%, THAT is what is right! The doctrines of grace which we hold gives God ALL THE GLORY and puts man where He belongs, i.e. IN THE DUST! “Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1] You are either an Arminian or a Calvinist! You either believe that Salvation is ALL OF GOD, or you believe that it is partly of God and partly of man! There is NO MIDDLE GROUND! Those who pretend that they are neither Arminians nor “Calvinists” are in reality hypocrites! They suppose that they are neutral! But in matters pertaining to the doctrines of Soteriology (salvation) there are NO NEUTRALS! NOBODY IS NEUTRAL! EVERYBODY HAS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST! Only ONE side can be right and only ONE side can be wrong, so in claiming to be neutral and pretending to see right and wrong on both sides, the neutral puts himself above everybody. He is the most righteous of all. He can see how everybody’s a little bit wrong but him and he is the only one right-the only one who really sees the truth, which he claims is somewhere in-between, which makes him the worst liar and most treacherous enemy of all! As Jesus said “He that is not for Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” [Matthew 12:30] You either believe fallen man is totally depraved and CANNOT come to God of his own ‘free-will’ or you don’t! [John 6:44] You either believe God has elected a CERTAIN NUMBER and sovereignly ordained them to eternal life or you don’t! [Acts 13:48] You either believe that Christ laid down His life FOR THE SHEEP and them alone, as he said He did, or you don’t! [John 10:15] You either believe that the Holy Spirit DRAWS God’s chosen by an IRRESISTIBLE POWER or you don’t! [Jeremiah 31:3] And finally you either believe Christ saves FULLY AND FINALLY those whom He died for unto the end or you don’t! [Hebrews 7:25] There is no MIDDLE GROUND HERE! I know what have written might sound harsh and ‘un-loving’, but “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the TRUTH”?! [Galatians 4:16]. If you choose to believe that fallen, depraved man has a ‘free-will’ to either accept or reject Christ, and that the spiritually dead man can respond to God’s call anytime HE chooses, you are free to do so. But I believe that if you are TRULY SAVED by the Spirit of God and have ‘the root of the matter in you’ [Job 19:28] then God will sooner or later open your eyes to the truth of that word - “it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy”!! [Romans 9:16]. Please know that I shall be praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of His absolute sovereignty and show you that our God is STILL the Absolute Sovereign who has ‘mercy on WHOM HE WILL and hardens WHOM HE WILL and NONE can say unto Him “what doest Thou”?! [Daniel 4:35] John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
Small very light correction... I'm sorry if this sounds pedantic. 1)- Molinism relies on a concept of middle knowledge that posits that God knows everything person x WOULD do in situation y. Not COULD. Could implies open contracausality, which is more in alignment with Open Theism. Molinism posits instead that in any given world with a given group of humans those humans in those circumstances WILL reliably produce a given action from that person. The variables are: the world posited before God created. The person x who lives in that world. The situation person x is in in that specific posited possible world. Once those values are plugged in in the mind of God the concept is that God's middle knowledge results in a 100% certain result for those variables. There's no other way you'd actually ever do something other than you actually do because it's the knowledge of wgat person x certainly WOULD do in situation Y. It sounds like it solves the problem of foreknowledge, Providence and free will, but it does so only by envisioning any given human x as being the sort of entity that would ALWAYS do action/sin/repentance/etc in situation Y. But this doesn't fit how we imagine the human deliberative process occurring in a genuine modernivertaruan free will model of sin, psychology and soteriology. The formula that resolves those values into an answer is of course a mystery, so it just punts to the idea that God is so smart that he can sort that out easily, but it's still punting to mystery with the solution being an illusion rooted in the idea that those variables can reliably produce a given outcome of they're plugged in to this mysterious formula. Personally I find it more compelling that God knows what we COULD do, but his mastery of the variables us such that he has a means to achieve his will in a creative mysterious process regardless of our decisions being genuinely "could" instead of "would" type actions and deliberations. Though let's be frank, as we get old we get pretty set in our ways, a former of middle knowledge is definitely at play too, but it's not this pristine super-simultion that Molina imagined. It's vaster.
That would be damnable. Strawmen are not worth propping up. Of course God is the Sovereign Actor and only Savior by which we can be saved. Without His first action, we would have no hope. We just recognize the fact that men will be punished or rewarded by the righteous judgement and execution of justice by God. If you didn't realize, punishing someone who could not have done otherwise is immoral. The fact that we u derstand justice as a concept would suggest men have a free will to do right or wrong.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you John 17: 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. Romans 9 :15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
All you did was post various proof texts out of context... were you trying to make a point? If you read the entire chapters of those verses you will find out that the context contradicts the Calvinistic doctrines. For example: John 6:44... did you stop there? Read: John 6:45 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Also, you have an issue in a few chapters afterward in John 12:32 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. --- Also in John 15... the context is that Jesus is talking to His Apostles, that verse does not apply to anyone else but the Apostles: John 6:70 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? Also, the prayer in John 17... did you read the full thing?! In the beginning He is praying for His Apostles, then near the end He prays for the entire world: John 17 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. You need to read your Bible and stop being lazy. Calvinism is a false religion and it is keeping you from the truth of Christ.
@@STEVEinNC Did you read the whole prayer or even know the context? Jesus starts off by praying for His Apostles and says why. Then: 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 *** Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;*** 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ***that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.*** 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
@@eiontactics9056 Correct, all the world will believe, those on the earth and under the earth, that Jesus was sent by the Father and is Lord, every single one will believe and confess, but it won't be a saving belief for most since there's only remnant chosen by God's sovereign grace and choice - Romans 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Philippians 2:9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Romans 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
@@STEVEinNC I can go over those proof texts you posted out of context, but you have not really responded to my reply: The context in the prayer is that those who were given to Jesus at that time were the 12 Apostles, not some unconditional elected before the foundations. Jesus is praying that they continue in faith and preach the Gospel to the world, so that the world can believe and be saved by their word. I was pointing out that you cherry picked a verse out of context to seemingly support a false doctrine. You have to read the full context of Scripture, and only derive presuppositions from what the text actually says and leave out what it doesn't say. Your issue is that you discount context and actual meaning of these verses and read into them your TULIP (which Scripture does not support). This is why it is very frustrating dealing with Scripture with a Calvinist. You literally have to try to re-teach them Scripture and the Gospel and at the same time you have to deal with their misunderstandings and paradigm. It boggles my mind how one can claim to be a Christian, but literally act so blind to Scripture to the point where they don't even know the Gospel of Christ.
any lie stays a lie ! the word lie in Hebrew is an anagram of knot , and thats what we do when we lie we create knots , if you have to go so far as to twist text, replace words . for example : from the beginning of the world to before the beginning of the world . to make your new religion tread water . just to make your argument stronger , when it's forbidden to change scripture . then you've just started another gospel . Calvin is another religion,they believe in Christ ,the anointed and go as so far as to say they are the anointed and eveyone else is created for HELL .
Thé extremes of putting men doctrines before the infallible Word of God is dangerous we stick with the writing word period those men were good in their times but we live in the age of more information so is healthy to know their point of view but the gospel is unchanged world and is the only way to know the truth of God and all about our final destiny.
Only those who are born again have free will. This is the way Jesus saw the idea of freedom in John 8:32: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” And this is the way Paul talks about freedom in Romans 6: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delievered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18). A Technical Definition The more technical definition of free will that some people use is this: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. The key word here is ultimate, or decisive. The point is not just that choices are self-determined, but that the self is the ultimate or decisive determiner. The opposite of this definition would be that God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices - however many or diverse other intervening causes are. On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. There are great measures of self-determination, as the Bible often shows, but never is man the ultimate or decisive cause of his preferences and choices. When man’s agency and God’s agency are compared, both are real, but God’s is decisive. Yet - and here’s the mystery that causes so many to stumble - God is always decisive in such a way that man’s agency is real, and his responsibility remains. But Isn’t This Inconceivable? I say that many stumble at this because they regard it as inconceivable. My own view is that the Bible does teach this - the compatibility of God’s decisive sovereignty and man’s responsibility. If this seems inconceivable to you, I would plead that you not let that keep you from believing what the Bible teaches. But it might be helpful to draw in one attempt to help make sense of this. Can a person’s acts be justly regarded as praiseworthy or blameworthy if those acts flow from a good or evil nature that inclines him in only one way? Here is part of John Calvin’s answer to this objection: The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness that he can do nothing but evil. Should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, “It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil”? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? So much more can be said. Questions abound. My plea is that you focus on the actual teaching of the Scriptures. Try not to bring philosophical presuppositions to the text (presuppositions like: human accountability cannot coexist with God’s decisively working “all things according to the counsel of his will,” Ephesians 1:11). Let the Bible speak fully and deeply. Trust that someday we will no longer see in a mirror dimly, but face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12). John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
A problem I see that is overlooked by anti Calvinist ministries is the matter of eschatological fixed TIME or fixed NUMBER. Is there a FIXED TIME for the rapture or return of Jesus Christ (whatever your brand of age termination eschatology demands) or a FIXED NUMBER of saints that must be reached to terminate the age? The Bible itself has no explicit statement from genesis to revelation about the termination of the age through the salvation of a fixed number of converts. Jesus does talk explicitly about the DAY & HOUR being a SET FIXED DATE & TIME that God the Father ALONE has set & knows & DOES NOT CHANGE. Matt 24:36 Matt 25:13 Mark 13:32 Where however is this fixed number of saints referenced at? Yet Calvinists & traditionalists constantly adhere to the FIXED NUMBER of saints. If Calvinism were true then the un Biblical notion FIXED NUMBER of saints is understandable for to them Christ died only for a certain select few. Though God in His Omniscience does know the number of saints that will be present at that time( as well as all their classification into gender number race religion nationality etc), there is nowhere in the scriptures He says that there is ONLY A FIXED NUMBER of saints. Show me even one verse you Calvinists where God explicitly tells of a given fixed number of saints. Your theology is from the white spaces. God's offer of salvation to mankind is thus specifically stated "FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY!!" Eschatologically speaking that limit is bounded by the return of Jesus Christ to judge the world &/or swap the terms & conditions of salvation for some other less glorious harder to secure package ie if you are a dispensationist. Pragmatically speaking the offer of salvation is limited by 1) Your lifespan. 2) Your intellectual power to determine what the terms of salvation are & are not & fulfill them ie what to believe what not to believe & what if anything else you must do... the only other possible exception is those that die in infancy or intellectual immaturity. The pragmatic considerations are also limited by the eschatological limit if you happen to be here at the termination of the age. Just like a newspaper coupon salvation is FREE for a limited time ONLY. However if you anti Calvinist traditionalists keep on insisting that God is interested in achieving a number of saints & keep on ignoring the statement that the time of the offer is fixed, then what you got is some sort of perverted musical chair game. You put a limited number of seats all around then you call everyone marching around them to sit down in them & when the last seat is occupied then the game is over & the music stops. In essence what difference is there between that & Calvinism? Well there is a difference. I suppose the difference is that Jesus Christ only died for so many but the determination is made by the freedom to choose to sit in an unoccupied seat or not before the rest of humanity fills up the seats. Did God really build a place in Heaven for all men? Or did God only build a place in heaven for a few, "frozen chosen" or otherwise determined by libertarian free will? Will heaven be full of unoccupied real estate if indeed Christ died for all mankind? Empty Berkshire Hathaway homes all up for sale? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Soteriology101 There is nothing showing that John Calvin believed the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It sure has nothing of it in his commentaries and a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvin’s writings. It was a counter reaction on the Synod of Dordrecht against the Five articles of the Remonstrants [Arminius] 60 year after John Calvin had passed away. Calvin sure believed that the wrath of God came on Christ for the sins of the whole world which is Biblical. The importants of limited atonement is minor and hypothetical. We find support that John Calvin did not concern himself with Thoughts of Limited Atonement in some of his commentaries. BY JOHN CALVIN MARCH 5, 2010 “Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Sermon on Ephesians 5:11-14] “The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of His love toward the Church in shedding His own blood for it. Whereby it appeared how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offence, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish ...” [Commentary on Acts 20:28] “He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.” [Commentary on Romans 5:18] “True it is that the effect of His death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered His death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them ...” [Sermon CXVI on the Book of Job (31:29-32)] “The word many is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.” [Commentary on Matthew 20:28] www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm
_Your intellectual power to determine what the terms of salvation are_ Bunch of heresy on steroids. Believing in the gospel is a matter of intellectual power? What a farce.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 You must understand a statement before you can believe it or reject it. Maybe then you should preach the gospel to the birds of the air & the beasts of the field to see how they respond.
"IF A PROPHET BE DECEIVED, I THE LORD HAS DECEIVED THAT PROPHET, AND WILL DESTROY HIM" !! PS: CALVIN OR BUST !! "THOU ART BESIDE THYSELF", MR WILTED FLOWERS !!
Does Remnant Radio ever have discussions or people on whom they have a theological disagreement with? I like what you guys were saying in regards to being theologically diverse in your study's and to whom you lean on for teachers. Not being stuck in an echo chamber. I've watched the discussion on baptism with you guys and Mike Winger and have some disagreements about it. I would like have an open dialogue conversation with you guys about baptism and its role
Wrong again on y’alls interpretation of spiritual deadness. Jesus directly compared physical deadness with spiritual deadness in this verse. Matthew 8:22 KJVS [22] But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Just to let you know, the vast majority of Scholarly Christians, cringe any time someone uses the KJV. If you want to build a good argument drop the KJV thing. Sorry to burst your bubble but yeah.
It seems to me that contemporary "believers" indeed are blown about by every wind of doctrine, precisely because they, themselves, have FAILED to commit themselves to the proper study of the Scriptures. To say it another way they lack the Berean spirit seen in Acts 17:11. Moreover, they FAIL to comprehend the major connections of the whole counsel of God. For example, in what way is the fall and doctrine of original sin connected to the rest of Scripture? How you view the doctrine of original sin MUST, OF NECESSITY, determine how you view the rest of the plan of redemption! So, what does that mean? It means this: that if you embrace a pelagian or semi-pelagian view (the teaching concerning the manner in which mans' will is free or as Luther and many others, rightly believe(d), imprisoned, cast OUT of the garden of Eden and in exile, like John the writer of Revelation on Patmos, and only free within the confines of a fallen and sinful nature; under the curse of sin and death, and naturally an enemy and against God) of the fall, like Roman Catholicism, then you WILL fail to comprehend the biblical and necessary connections to salvation. How many local congregations have true undershepherds that actually teach the foundational problem that led mankind to be under the curse of sin and death? How many of them actually understand the implications of that event and see that ALL that follows is DIRECTLY connected to it? Did God cover their sin and are Adam and Eve among the redeemed? If yes, how did that happen? Did they DECIDE to obey Him as a means to salvation or as a result of being saved? Is it possible to obey, AS A MEANS TO SALVATION? Or must the KING OF GLORY initiate it from beginning to end? So much more could be stated. But I am NOT the Holy Spirit and it is His work that convinces men of the truth! Men merely respond to the call of God who effectually initiates His call by His Spirit! e.g. Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 15:12-21 Joshua 24:1-5 and many, many more places.
To say we hear the gospel we believe in the gospel and then we are mark by the Holy Spirit it's not exact BECAUSE ONLY Jesus sheep can hear is voice and NOBODY ELSE!! BECAUSE we know Him and this is what is making the separation between the good seed and the tares born at night and for to believe a man have to be in the Spirit or IN Christ , the same thing also go for repentance : a sinners CANNOT REPENT (mea culpa mea maxima culpa) BECAUSE repentance it's a complete act of the Holy Spirit call sanctification. The tares will never come to the light because they CANNOT and this is the true Gospel.We are CHOSEN.
19:45 Either I’m right, or God has decreed for me to be wrong... This actually does make sense. God decreed Christ would be crucified by the men that did it but at the same time they did it because they were following the sinful desires of their hearts. If Dr. Flowers continues to teach incorrect theology until the day God calls him home, it would only mean that God had a purpose in it. We can’t see what the purpose is in everything we encounter but if God has a decree we k is there is a purpose in everything. I’m willing to bet Naomi didn’t know why her husband and her sons died, we know now from Matthew 1 that it was for the purposes of bringing the Christ into the world exactly on time and as planned. (Naomi brought Ruth back to Israel with her after her husband and sons died. Ruth and Boaz are in Jesus’s lineage) All that to say, Naomi suffered great loss, but it was not purposeless.
Delete Romans 9 from a debate and most wouldn't be able to answer majority of rebuttals. I don't ask a Calvinist anything other than the heresy of their views. Which is, God works both sides of the chess board. If this is really 100 percent true no way to prove it not true,(which there is but I digress) then God breaks his own laws and rules which renders him no longer holy and unworthy to be the one true God. People that believe this fail to realize God can know all outcomes that could or even will happen without being their author. Most in the long run use this as an excuse to be spiritually lazy or feel better when they lose a debate with a unbeliever. Oh he can't see it anyway so whatever type of mentality. It's sad. I'm a provision believer til I die. To tell you the truth, if my family would have been Calvinist, I may have turned out hating God and that's no lie.
Hey Rico- thanks for the thoughts. Since you're looking for stuff outside of Romans 9 ... Did you know that almost all of TULIP can be gleaned from the Pentateuch? Seriously - go look for yourself. (start here: read *all* of Deut 28. Then ask yourself what the heck v63 is there for. If it spins your head that God would punish them so, why is Deut 28 followed by 29:4. Read it in context, since this verse deals with chapter 29.) And if you want something outside of Rom 9 that shows God playing "both sides of the chess board", try this verse: [+] The LORD instructed Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, make sure you do all the wonders before Pharaoh that I have put within your power. *But* I will harden his heart *so that* he won’t let the people go. Then you will say to Pharaoh: This is what Yahweh says: Israel is My firstborn son. I told you: Let My son go so that he may worship Me, but you refused to let him go. Now I will kill your firstborn son! ” (Exod 4:21-23) What was God's command? "Let them go" What was God's action? Harden Pharaoh so that he would NOT let them go. And then kill Pharaoh's son because his dad disobeyed Moses (basically, passing the sins from the father to the son) God is actually telling Moses that He's going to play both sides of that chessboard. Weird, huh?
There IS a demon of Calvinism. It IS a doctrine of demons because it teaches a different God, different Jesus, different gospel, and different Spirit. The God of Calvinism is who the devil would be if he were God, so it is literally devil worship. I doubt most self identified Calvinists have the demon because most proclaiming Calvinists don't even know what it means or aren't 5 point Calvinists, but they hold some of the erroneous beliefs which could be demon portals for greater deception later on. But look at the 5 point and hypercalvinists--they are so hardened and un-Christ-like they are probably technically apostate. A little leaven leavens the whole lump and Calvinism is bad leaven. It is poisoning the body of Christ. We must protect our gospel preaching churches from the demonic cancer that is Calvinism. Squash it when it rears it's head. Tolerance is not a virtue.
Best books that represent and defend the Reformed/Calvinist position on the Doctrine of God, Man & Salvation... What About Free Will? By Scott Christensen Whomever He Wills Edited by Matthew Barrett Salvation by Grace by Matthew Barrett Chosen for Life By Sam Storms Chosen by God by RC Sproul What is Reformed Theology? by RC Sproul Willing To Believe by RC Sproul 12 What Abouts? by John Samson The Potters Freedom by James R White From Heaven He Came and Saught Her from Crossway Books
@@cjclark9205 😂😂😂, this was in my heart. The Bible is always my first reference, 2nd and 3rd...10th, then the rest can follow as option 11... If it's true that apostles and prophets are irrelevant as all calvinism know and believe, then why write books in addition to the Bible? I am not saying that true Christian books are bad, but my point is that if anyone wants to know anything, I refer them to scripture and if they fail to understand and I can't reach them , then I can refer them to true scripture based sermon or book.
No the argument is what Jesus says to nicodemus. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit. You must be born again! That which is flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God. And faith and repentance is pleasing to God. That’s the argument concerning total depravity.
Paul Smith ROMANS 8:8 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. This is talking about those living according to the flesh and not walking in the spirit. HEBREWS 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: FOR HE THAT COMETH TO GOD MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that HE is a rewarder of THEM THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM. This verse in Hebrews says the exact opposite of what you just says. It’s abundantly clear in scripture that faith is not a work. Faith is not a work not because His has to gift it to us or cause us to have faith. That’s not why faith is not considered a work. Faith is not considered a work simply because God’s word SAYS it’s not a work! God had sovereignly declared that faith is not a work. So sure was this declaration that it’s actually a LAW. God’s decreed it: ROMANS 3:31 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW. When we act in faith according to God’s law and believe of our own freewill and not out of coercion we thereby do not countervail God’s sovereignty we actually FULLFILL IT! WE ESTABLISH IT! Calvinists think that man freely believing somehow detracts from God’s sovereignty when the exact opposite is true. Calvinists unbeknownst to them actually detract from God’s glory in their own human effort to preserve it. If God has sovereignly decreed that man should have free will and saving faith was to be a real genuine expression of that, then a Calvinist is actually fighting against and doing things contrary to God’s word. God is most glorified when we obey what He’s decreed and follow after the patten He’s clearly laid out for us. When we try and break that pattern or rearrange it do you think God is then pleased with us? God does not need you to try and protect His glory by saying regeneration has to precede faith. Don’t worry, God’s got this. He just wants you to let go and trust that what He’s decreed is perfect. In doing so He will be most glorified. Don’t frustrate God. God is PLEASED when we exercise faith. How do you expect to please Him if it’s Him effectually causing you to believe. Faith pleases Him so just relax it’s ok. ROMANS 4:4,5 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. ROMANS 11:6 6 And IF BY GRACE, THEN IS IT NO MORE OF WORKS: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work. **I’d encourage you to take the whole counsel of scripture and compare scripture with scripture and verses like Romans 8:8 fit perfectly and are easily understood with no contradiction.
The Coming Kingdom prove your statement, assertions like that need to be given some kind of reference. Nicodemus who was second temple Pharisee had no clue but you do somehow, care to share?
The Coming Kingdom I’m looking for primary sources, not commentaries. I asked specifically because there is nothing from that time period I’ve read regarding that. I’ve researched this topic and commentaries are not the same thing.
The Coming Kingdom yeah, I’ve read through the apocryphal books, Josephus, Philo and some historical Bible backgrounds and what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Jesus’s statement was radical and ‘heavenly’ so that it wasn’t something thought or taught before. So unless you can back up your point with an actual reference beyond ‘look up this commentary’ I don’t think you’ve proved your assertion.
The Coming Kingdom his reference was to the Spirit and water of Ezekiel 36, that I agree with, what you said was that this was common thought in second temple Judaism which it wasn’t.... I would like to read what you have but you have yet to give me anything what you’re saying is like if I told you ‘read Josephus and you’ll get it’ you’re not given me anything to go on. Love how you say it is gnostic thought when gnostic wasn’t even around until after Jesus’s death... it wasn’t even fully formed until much later but you got your beliefs and that’s okay... I just wouldn’t toss assertions like that around without backing it up.
Yet Leighton, makes the assertion that God gave man dominion. And that dominion =autonomous free will. But when I asked him to exegete from the text his assertion he deflected the question and didn’t answer the question!!
So why do we have notions of good and bad? Since all things done by men are simply the decree of God. All things, deeds and actions of every atom in the universe, are meticulously controlled by the will and power of God. Ordained by Him before time began. He is good, so how can we even know what bad is? Who are you oh man to question God....when you preach against abortion or homosexuality etc? Can the clay say to the potter why did you make those sodomites? Etc etc
It's funny Leighton talks about not trying to divide a church or the kingdom yet Leighton's ministry is devoted ENTIRELY to doing just that? TRYING to refute a biblical doctrine like Calvinism is a total mistake. It's a doctrine he obviously disdains and, having listened to him numerous times as here, continues to misrepresent and has NEVER understood. But devoting you're ENTIRE life's work to dividing the kingdom rather than uniting is very very troubling. But how is that fulfilling the great commision? If you want to hear a proper Calvinist understanding and Leighton being corrected listen to this debate: ruclips.net/video/2V0YpZ0FnSQ/видео.html
Calvinism isnt a biblical doctrine. It wasn't even around until the 5th century. Its a heresy that makes God the author of evil and man exempt from any responsibility before Him.
He’s not dividing the Kingdom, he’s EXPOSING THE DIVIDE THAT ALREADY EXISTS! He’s exposing the divide that Augustine started by bringing in Gnosticism into the church. No early church fathers held to his or Calvin’s or the reformers todays beliefs on man not having freewill. And neither does the apostle Paul and the whole counsel of scripture support Reformed theology unless you twist the scriptures. I praise God for Leighton’s ministry in exposing this divide that’s existed for 1500 years!
@@apilkey: I see you have a playlist on "free will" and the very first video in it is by Jesse Morrell, who is an open-theist and sinless perfectionist heretic. This is the problem with people suffering with Anti-Calvinist Derangement Syndrome, they'll agree with anyone including heretics and enemies of the faith as long as they share a hatred of Calvinism. When your "Calvinism" playlist is mostly made up of videos from Gene Kim, Steven Anderson and Kevin Thompson you need to seriously examine yourself. I actually feel kind of bad to see 1 or 2 vids by Mike Winger in there, he deserves better than being lumped in with KJVOnlyists.
Christopher Smith thanks for your thoughts, are you assuming I agree with all of the videos on my playlist? My playlist absolutely does not consist solely of people I agree with, rather various opinions of which I take the good and throw out the bad testing the spirits. That’s why I’m a bible believer and don’t follow man or any man-made doctrines. I would suggest you don’t falsely assume what peoples beliefs are based off their playlists as that’s rather foolish. The main thing I see with Calvinist’s however is that they regard their favourite Calvinist teachers as almost infallible and wouldn’t dare question anything they say. You’ll notice I also have some videos of John Piper and RC Sproul that doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say obviously. You would do well to take the good and throw out the bad with those teachers as well instead of blindly following fallible man. I won’t make any assumptions of your beliefs but would encourage you to call every man a liar but the word of God true.
The Arminian view cannot be true......I understand why people want to believe that salvation works that way because it seems more fair that everyone has an opportunity. But life is not fair. Some people live under communism and dictatorships where the Gospel is not even allowed to be preached. Some people get killed in automobiles at 10 or 15 years old....others die young from cancer. Some are killed very young in wars; others are murdered. We are either predestined and protected by God until we come to faith in Christ; or were just the luckiest people on the planet that we happened to come to faith in Christ before we got run over by a bus. Predestination has to be true.....the free will idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny.....God chooses His Elect before the Foundation of the world. Thats what guardian angels are for; ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation....humans will always hate predestination but when analyzed it has to be the truth. Otherwise you just believe in luck....which actually makes the Arminian view just as unfair and instead puts humans and luck in control; rather than God.
Not to mention that if God just left the building of His church up to human free will; God would not be in complete control of human history. Jesus said, "I will build My Church!" Jesus builds the church and He is not dependent on the will of humans to do so.....
That’s funny hearing him complain about misrepresentation lol. Flowers builds such a straw man out of Calvinism that the only way I can even conceive of him ever truly understanding the reformed faith is if I assume that he’s intentionally misrepresenting it today. Both sides do this. But unless you’re going to stop you don’t really have the right to complain about it.
It seems that, the more you quote Calvinists in general and Calvin in particular on the theology that bears his name, the more you will be accused of strawmanning. I suppose Calvin himself was a hypercalvinist; if you disagree with him on any point, surely you're not implying that you yourself are a wiser scholar than him, that you understand his theology even better than he did?
You’d have to provide an example of what you mean. Hyper Calvinists believe in double predestination and believe that God forces people to do evil acts. So no, Calvin was not a hyper Calvinist. But give me an example of something and I’ll tell you if it’s strawmanning or not.
@@quinnpeterson2716 "Hypercalvinism" is nothing but a convenient label Calvinists use to disassociate themselves from the uglier, difficult to biblically defend, but totally consistent, aspects of their theology. Calvin was indeed a hypercalvinist, and he was more than happy to write about it. "They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. (...) It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7) Of course Calvin goes on to attempt to deflect the actual implications of the arguments he's making: “So God in ordaining the fall of man had an end most just and right which holds the name of sin in abhorrence. Though I affirm that He ordained it so, I do not allow that He is properly the author of sin.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.123) This amounts to a "I said so" argument. Calvin is making assertions and then refusing to follow them through based on the logic he uses to make them. "It is therefore wicked and calumnious to say that I make the fall of man one of the works of God. But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.123-124) It is "wicked and calumnious" to hold Calvin accountable for his own theological and philosophical arguments, and when pressed sufficiently on the matter he openly admits he can't justify it. Calvinists are so invested in their theology that when they encounter a sufficiently imposing problem in it, they will begin twisting Scripture to suit their views, not their views to suit Scripture. In this way, John 3:16 and other verses speaking of God's universal love for the world and His desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth become problems.
Well it’s obviously impossible to argue with someone that creates their own definitions for things. I guess I’d have the right to call you a full on Pelagian at this point lol. You can’t disregard the differentiation between double predestination just because you don’t like the idea of reprobates. Not only that, you don’t get away from it in your theology unless you’re an open theist or a universalist. See, if anyone ends up in hell, we account for it by saying that God had a plan and a purpose for their wickedness and their just punishment. You say that God created them “trying his hardest” to save them but failing over and over again. In which case not only is He not omnipotent but His omniscience would mean that He failed to be omnibeneveleant. Because if He knew I would do wicked things and end up in hell without any purpose and He created me anyway, knowing He was too weak to save me, that’s not very good. You have to practice following your theology’s implications through.
@@quinnpeterson2716 I'm not coming up with my own definitions for anything. I'm simply being honest about what Calvinism is, straight from the horse's mouth. Reprobation and double-predestination are both very shaky areas theologically speaking, and many Calvinists don't affirm either. Your argument was, and I quote, that "Calvin was not a hyper Calvinist." He was. I have provided quotations from Calvin himself directly showing that he was. If you still say he isn't, the ball's in your court to prove it with more quotations. If you claim to be a Calvinist but differ with him theologically, why is that? You started this argument claiming that Flowers and other non-Calvinists misrepresent the Calvinist position, but your representation of the non-Calvinist position is not accurate at all. The non-Calvinist view is absolutely not that God tries. God sent His only begotten Son. God has made a legitimate offer to every single human being alive. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. He is not willing that any should perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. He has made salvation available through His Son, and if you won't come to Him, your death is entirely on your own head. It's like a man who is sitting on death row, awaiting execution, refusing to accept a pardon. If he accepts that pardon, he cannot claim any credit for it. He could have accepted it and lived; the power of the governor offering him that pardon is not reliant in any way upon whether or not he accepts it. The justness of his judgement and sentence to death are not reliant on him accepting that pardon. He has received an offer of forgiveness for his crimes. If he rejects it, does that invalidate the authority of the judge who sentenced him somehow? If he accepts it, can he somehow claim credit for being offered, and accepting, an unmerited and unearned pardon? Do you think God is only capable of being sovereign if He determines every single action anything or anyone ever takes? Another deeply troubling thing about Calvinism is that so many Calvinists are so deeply immersed in their theology that they will stray into dangerous waters when trying to defend it. You should be deeply cautious about the language you use in your attack on the non-Calvinist position, especially the way you describe God.
Leighton's logic is not even philosophically consistent at times. It certainly isn't theologically consistent. It's very sad that people will choose to listen to this rather than consider the excellent reasoning of Luther, Calvin or Johnathan Edwards.
Show me the Scripture that proves you are chosen? So, what is your salvation based on? Since there are no Scripture to prove you are chosen.Chance or good works. Should cause you to rethink what you believe.
Peter Harris The Bible is the Gospel. Not Calvinism. That means is impossible for our God to give mankind the Freewill to chose or reject Him. God Bless you. John 3:16-18
@@rustymcalister 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: _For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction._ Paul clearly believed the Thessalonian church he was writing to were: 1)Loved by God 2)Chosen by God to believe the Gospel 3)Had not only received the Gospel with words but with power, with the Holy Spirit, and with deep conviction. _Since there are no Scripture to prove you are chosen._ The Scripture has just been provided to you. Now it's up-to you to decide whether to love the truth or to ignore it.
(42:42) Once again, Leighton mangles Matt. 23:37 to fit his soteriology. And no one corrects him. Smh. It’s a low view of Scripture that causes one to continually do this.
@@JonathanGrandt two weeks go by and he still makes no attempt to explain it. I guess it's that "high" view of scripture which prevents him from actually talking about scripture... at all.
So... I’ll just make the point mbe141 was trying to make though he didn’t really make it clear. Leighton misquotes Matthew 23:37. When using it as an anti Calvinism text, it is often misquoted. So it’s not necessarily an anti Calvinism text, since the verse actually says “I’ve longed to gather YOUR CHILDREN together... etc.... but you were not willing.” It’s used as an anti Calvinist text because of the “not willing” portion and yet it is misquoted to leave out “your children”. Obviously there’s a difference between “I’ve longed to gather you but you were not willing” and “I’ve longed to gather your children but you were not willing.” One would imply that God wanted to gather the people and the people were not willing, and the other would imply that God wanted to gather the children and the “parents” were not willing. Now I don’t see how this verse really refutes Calvinism unless you claim “not willing” is Free Will and thereby hindering God. The Calvinist would say God sovereignly willed the leadership of Israel to not permit Him to gather the people. Ehhh. Well ok. But I’m sure that’s what they’d say. At any rate Calvinism is heretical whether leighton misquoted the verse or not. I don’t think he helps himself by misquoting it but his overall point is still the same, that God wanted something that the people did not permit. I don’t personally really think it would stop a Calvinist in his tracks though. They seriously have a (bad) answer for everything and they will never change no matter how much the Lord longs for it.
@@JonathanGrandt good point, however, as you state, the relevant bits of the verse concerning humans opposing Christ's desire is upheld. Considering Jerusalem is being addressed as a metaphorical entity here, which would render "your children" to simply mean the people who live There, the meaning is retained.
Now THIS is how you discuss Calvinism from a scholarly exegetical perspective. Too many emotional rhetoric on RUclips about anti-Calvinism; they are demonic, there’re not saved they are arrogant and on and on and on. Total waste of emotional energy.
Although I’ve been leaning Calvinism for a while now, I’m perfectly happy being persuaded otherwise. BUT you must come at me intelligently and you Mr. leighton, are a breath of fresh air. Brilliantly done. God bless. Subscribed 👍
Gia LovesJesus Leighton will be coming back on here in the next few months.
MR. FLOWERS IS A SORDID ANTI-CALVINISTIC RAT... DIGGING DEEP IN ARMINIAN PELAGIUS DUMP !! SATAN IS TRANSFORMED INTO AN ANGEL OF LIGHT !!
@@lovejoypeaceforever dude just shut up
Nice to see all the ways, as Calvinist too discuss non calvinist doctrine in many ways sometimes with pride arrogance and I know better than you, personal insults, dismissive, telling the other side what they believe, instead of listening to what they say they believe, and others with love and respect, it goes both ways.
@@JCsBJJWarrior28
"@John Stewart dude just shut up"
That's no way to talk to a person Christian or not
In Revelation 2:21, Jesus said He gave Jezebel space to repent, but she would not. He put the total blame of her unrepentance on her. But Calvinism teaches that God is the one responsible. I believe I'll keep trusting Jesus and the Bible instead of Calvinism.
I found Remnant Radio because of Dr. Leighton Flowers… God has decreed me as a Leightonist 😭😂 lol for real though, grateful to the Lord for giving us exactly what we needed. A deep thinker in the middle (biblical truth) of the spectrum. It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other… I almost walked away from my faith due to Calvinist attempting to convert me. But I stayed in the word, and in doing so, I found Leighton Flowers. God bless you all. 🙏🏼💯
I feel like I can breathe now. Just like one of you said, the spiritual pressure of searching out the soteriology of Calvinism is pretty heavy, and this conversation helped lift that weight. Thank you.
Wow someone recommended listening to Dr. Leighton on Andrew Farley's channel and I am no theologian I only know my own testimony is that God Loves (unconditionally) or I would have died and been in hell forever more times than I could count and a few I am certain of, but His grace and mercy lead me to know Him and love Him above everything and everyone, no matter the circumstances I find myself in. God did it ALL and I just believed. So not sure about any of these heavy debates but I will continue to let Holy Spirit teach me how to love more like Jesus everyday, and if I spend my time with HIM, I know where that leads as I have 21 years of being taught by God's Holy Spirit and not men. What I know is the greatest of these is LOVE. I since a lot of a lack of peace in some of the debating here. Love should always be the motive behind what we say. Sounds simple but it has transformed my thinking and my life and that was no small thing. Love and Peace to you all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Actually, God doesn't love unconditionally. Those who don't believe in Jesus will be damned.
True ,and for love you have to have a genuine free will to choose freely or you can't have love , you would have to call it something else with anything less than that . Peace out
God has decreed for me to regect Calvinist doctrine for some reason.
I was predestined to make this comment.
@@wjckc79 I was elected to like this!
probably you are not born again
Probably because Calvinism is unbiblical and ultimately a whole entire different religion.
@@eiontactics9056 you mock the doctrine of predestination, you are a goat not a sheep
I grew up (very near where Dr. Flowers grew up) the son of a Calvinist mother and an Arminian father. I sided with my mother (and her mother) because Calvinism seemed more "intellectual." A Baptist preacher I encountered in 1971 set me straight on what Biblical soteriology was, and I was released by the Holy Spirit from Calvinism into the arms of a loving Father who loves all and desires all to be saved. Like Dr. Flowers, I attended a small Southern Baptist college in west Texas (not Hardin-Simmons), but unlike Dr. Flowers, I found professors who helped me understand that there is a traditional view of Scripture that is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian. I had been a Calvinist for nearly 24 years, and by the way, later my mother came out of Calvinism at the age of 64 and served the Lord under true soteriology for the next 31 years of her life.
Bible teaches election and predestination. You left truth for lie.
@@marklar2012 The Bible does not say who specifically was elected or when that election occurred. You are gambling your soul on presuppositions you have approached the Bible with.
@@davemitchell116 It does teach that as clearly as for example on deity of Christ. Who?Christians were elected. When? Before the foundation of earth. All contained in one verse Eph. 1:4
I would start by reminding you, that it was NOT CALVIN who said - “I lay down My life for THE SHEEP”! [John 10:11] Again it wasn’t Calvin who said, “No man CAN COME to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW HIM”! [John 6:44] Neither said he - “AS MANY as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed”! [Acts 13:48]
Now I want to make it very clear that we use the term “Calvinism” ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, and are NOT IN AGREEMENT with all that Calvin taught.
That Calvin contributed a lot to the system that bares his name we do not deny. But even though we may quote a few things from the works of Calvin, our appeal is NOT TO CALVIN OR ANY CONFESSIONS OR CREEDS OF THE CHURCHES, BUT TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY OF LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
Historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead.
Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of a mere MAN - John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and the conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our OWN EXEGESIS AND EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS THE FIVE POINTS.
If John Calvin believed what the Spirit of God has taught us in our personal study of God’s Word and our experience in our preaching ministry, then good for him! But it means NOTHING TO US!
We be persuaded that the Spirit of God would have by and by taught us these glorious truths WHETHER THERE WAS A CALVIN OR NOT!
No infant comes into the world knowing everything, but learns as he grows! Even so a truly born again child of God may have many misconceptions concerning the nature and method of his salvation at first, but if he is saved at all, then the Spirit will by and by teach him what He means when He says that “It is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that showeth mercy”! [Romans 9:16]
“But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day”! [Proverbs 4:18]
Whatever glorifies God 100%, THAT is what is right!
The doctrines of grace which we hold gives God ALL THE GLORY and puts man where He belongs, i.e. IN THE DUST!
“Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1]
You are either an Arminian or a Calvinist! You either believe that Salvation is ALL OF GOD, or you believe that it is partly of God and partly of man!
There is NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Those who pretend that they are neither Arminians nor “Calvinists” are in reality hypocrites! They suppose that they are neutral! But in matters pertaining to the doctrines of Soteriology (salvation) there are NO NEUTRALS!
NOBODY IS NEUTRAL! EVERYBODY HAS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST!
Only ONE side can be right and only ONE side can be wrong, so in claiming to be neutral and pretending to see right and wrong on both sides, the neutral puts himself above everybody.
He is the most righteous of all. He can see how everybody’s a little bit wrong but him and he is the only one right-the only one who really sees the truth, which he claims is somewhere in-between, which makes him the worst liar and most treacherous enemy of all! As Jesus said “He that is not for Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” [Matthew 12:30]
You either believe fallen man is totally depraved and CANNOT come to God of his own ‘free-will’ or you don’t! [John 6:44]
You either believe God has elected a CERTAIN NUMBER and sovereignly ordained them to eternal life or you don’t! [Acts 13:48]
You either believe that Christ laid down His life FOR THE SHEEP and them alone, as he said He did, or you don’t! [John 10:15]
You either believe that the Holy Spirit DRAWS God’s chosen by an IRRESISTIBLE POWER or you don’t! [Jeremiah 31:3]
And finally you either believe Christ saves FULLY AND FINALLY those whom He died for unto the end or you don’t! [Hebrews 7:25]
There is no MIDDLE GROUND HERE!
I know what have written might sound harsh and ‘un-loving’, but “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the TRUTH”?! [Galatians 4:16].
If you choose to believe that fallen, depraved man has a ‘free-will’ to either accept or reject Christ, and that the spiritually dead man can respond to God’s call anytime HE chooses, you are free to do so.
But I believe that if you are TRULY SAVED by the Spirit of God and have ‘the root of the matter in you’ [Job 19:28] then God will sooner or later open your eyes to the truth of that word - “it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy”!! [Romans 9:16].
Please know that I shall be praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of His absolute sovereignty and show you that our God is STILL the Absolute Sovereign who has ‘mercy on WHOM HE WILL and hardens WHOM HE WILL and NONE can say unto Him “what doest Thou”?! [Daniel 4:35]
John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com
minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
Dave you know that in the Reformed - Augustinian tradition that you can believe God desires all to be saved? Same with universal atonement. I believe God desires all to be saved as well.
"How do you submit your theology to your church?" is an ick question. We're called to submit our theology to God. Not about to adjust theology to fit a church. HOW one presents what one believes is one thing, but adjusting to please a church is another story.
Amen to that, kindred spirit! 🙏🏾
Calvinist Dictionary
All: The elect.
Everyone: The elect.
Kosmos: Greek word that means “The elect”.
Whosoever: The elect.
World: The elect.
😂😂😂
True 😝
John Trevett
Arminius and Leighton means ALWAYS ALL "No-one can" always means anyone can.
John Trevett
Romans 11:26 And so ALL ISRAEL will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; This would then mean that every single Israelite will be saved? It is obvious not!!!
Many places in Scripture use the Word All Men for Not Only Jews but also other nations or “all kind of” there is a difference in the Greek.
John 12:32 And if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to Myself.” The word in the Greek for all here is πάντας (pantas) whose root is πᾶς (pas). says of πᾶς: When used without the articles, it means, "every kind or variety." When used with the article, it means "whole or the totality of persons or things referred to." Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Friberg)
Without the article… with distributive significance, denoting each individual in a class The word all in the verse has no article so it means "ALL KINDS OF MEN", so it isn't talking about every single man (universalism), it just denotes a broad spectrum. The notes of the translators in the Dutch Bible are correct [allen tot Mij Dat is, niet alleen de Joden, maar ook de heidenen, die in mij zullen geloven; Joh. 2:14,15. he drove THEM ALL out of the temple.
Judas betrayal was prophesied Do you really think he could have not betrayed the Lord
Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it’; and, ‘Let another take his office.’
In Romans 3:23 πάντες pantes IS NOT THE SAME
Romans 11: 15 For if their being CAST AWAY [ Not walked away]is the reconciling of the world, what will their ACCEPTANCE be but life from the dead?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part HAS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL until the FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES has come in. 26 And so ALL Israel will be saved, as it is written: All here means from every tribe and not everyone. Which of course is clear from the word SAVED
@@MariusVanWoerden One of many mistakes you and all calvinist seem to make is that if one is not a calvinist they are an arminian. Different sides to the same false theological coin. Context is required when interpreting scripture and one thing I've realized in all my study is two things that never go together... calvinism and context.
15:20
Honestly, it would be really hard to not tell my brothers about the problems with Calvinism if I were at a church promoting it. When I came out of Calvinism it was a truly great feeling.
Leighton has anyone not calling Calvinists Brothers in Christ thrown from Soteriology 101 ! If he believed Calvinism was not of God then how are those " In Calvinism " his brothers and if they are is Leighton simply complaining about the wallpaper color in Reform Churches ?
@@kevinpeterson346 Christians can be saved, and also confused, but that doesn't necessarily make them not Christians...
"feeling"
@@philagon Does God not supply us with joy upon proper revelation? Or is the key to Christianity being in pain in the truth. The frozen chosen! Pain does not = Truth. Something is not MORE TRUE because it is awful.
John 8:32
@@alexz2702 Interesting that you can only process the scriptures through a lens of pleasure or pain. Perhaps you should focus on what they mean instead.
Calvinism, the gospel according to Calvin
Yes Abel you are right Calvin brought us out to the Gospel against the pope's Salvation by Works. and of course that is NOT A gospel Now Leighton and his friends are bringing us back to the SELF HELP anti Gospel anti Bible message
Marius VanWoerden you cannot have balanced thoughts
@@MariusVanWoerden False , Reformers all remain in " the total Depravity " cesspool of Romes " council of Orange the Goths presided over , Augustine , Monks , Mani , & Babylon !
@@kevinpeterson346 www.openbible.info/topics/total_depravity Calvin did nothing but going back to Scripture and the EARLY church writings of them who were next generation to the Apostles
@@MariusVanWoerden Ironic. The vast majority of the early church fathers emphasized the fact that we have free will.
Debate Dr. James White on total depravity Dr. Flowers.
Casey Sandberg James is so blinded
@@albusai That is a convenient presupposition. Your assertion means that you've already decided Dr. White would be wrong without testing it against scripture (Acts 17:11). As Christians, we're to check any doctrine against the whole of scripture prayerfully and rightly to come to a conclusion. It would be just as wrong to say Dr. Flowers is blinded unless you check what he believes against scripture. A cordial, biblical debate gives Christians a chance to examine these doctrines. Saying Dr. White is blinded by a simple assertion is an ad hominem attack.
@@2timothy23 Leighton Flowers has invited James White, but he always dodges. Flowers has said this
@@explodingrubberducky797 James White has debated Leighton Flowers before; concerning Romans 9. Dr. Flowers changed the whole nature of the debate and this was unfair to Dr. White. Yet Dr. Flowers continues to reference Dr. White in many of his videos and on his site. Dr. White has discussed total depravity before, as other Christians have with Dr. Flowers, but after a time it gets tiring repeating your views from scripture and the other side doesn't believe it. I'm sure Dr. Flowers feels the same way, so debating becomes fruitless at some point because it isn't about sharpening one another, but who is more "right" than Biblical.
(Plus, we have to take in consideration preparing a debate is not an overnight thing; you have to plan a date, a time, a moderator, etc. based on both of their schedules. Sometimes it's just not possible to do.)
Excellent discussion! I have been wrestling with the whole predestination/Calvinism question recently and this episode was precisely what I have been looking for. I started with Heiser and his example of the 1st Samuel 23 story with Saul's exploits in doing away with David. While that solved the issue from a pure logic perspective, I was looking for a more direct theological argument against predestination. So, Thank you, Dr. Flowers; you provided that in spades!
Are you still arminian/ provisionist?
@@darcie7773 Why do you ask? 🙏🏾✝
@@DocLarsen44 just wondered if you changed your mind during that time
Do you remember which video was the one you mention by Heiser? I'd like to take a look at it.
@ i don't, but for election in the topic.
Calvinists and Arminians are both Christians. There. Now let’s talk about Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Leighton Flowers is a Provisionist.
Brother, people can walk and chew bubblegum. In two days I’m going to have a conversation with some Mormons. Yet today I’ll have a conversation about Christianity. Because maybe you haven’t come to a conclusion, but doctrine matters. It has real practical implications.
@EM well Thank God no one is an arminian here
"First we may call this doctrine(Calvinism) a novelty, seeing that for the first four hundred years after christ there is no mention of it. The first foundations for it were in the writings of Augustine, who, in his warring against Pelagius, let fall some expressions which some have unhappily picked up to the establishment of this error."- Quaker Theologian Robert Barclay
Kevin S. Thompson has a RUclips channel: Beyond the Fundamentals
Arminius was of course Calvinist as he was a devoted learned son of Geneva. The split between camps occurred after Calvin's death, when Beza was more or less in charge. Later on, Arminianism vs Calvinism became the black vs white issue that it remains to this very day. It's largely a matter of convenience, a kind of classic boxing match a la Pelagius vs Augustine, as we like to put clear distinctions on things so that we can compare and contrast them. Oddly, the debate conforms to the kind of dialectics that the German philosophers, even Marx, engaged in, similar to the Socialism vs Capitalism debate. Of course, there are very important issues involved, and they are truly at odds, but as Dr. Flowers points out, the answer is neither. There is a third option which isn't even being looked at.
So where is God in your theology or better yet where is God in your reality.? Do you only know about Him? Do you know Him ??? Do you know more about Calvinism and Arminianism? Who cares? What can you tell me about Christ?
@@rosehammer9482 Sister Rose. I can quote countless verses from memory, such is my devotion to the holy Book and her author. Do you want to challenge me to a duel? Might I challenge thee? Thou hast besmirched mine honor.
Calvinists misconstrue a class of people to be select individuals.
FIRE 🔥
Fundamentalist! I'm a Fundamentalist! And I love to learn and learn from different perspectives.
Explain what you mean by fundamentalist?
@@TheRemnantRadio - I mean one who holds on to the fundamental truths of God word's especially in the age of liberal thought and liberal enlightenment. This was best expressed through a series of books edited by RA Torrey going over basic truths that had been questioned: Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, internal evidences of John, doctrine of sin and atonement, etc.
I am a non Calvinist .... the part of this video where you all were talking about how forceful Calvinist are and how they think we are almost occultic. I can’t help but believe that they are the ones that are occultic. I can’t help but think that they believe in a God that is not found in the Bible. What do you say about this?
I would start by reminding you, that it was NOT CALVIN who said - “I lay down My life for THE SHEEP”! [John 10:11] Again it wasn’t Calvin who said, “No man CAN COME to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW HIM”! [John 6:44] Neither said he - “AS MANY as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed”! [Acts 13:48]
Now I want to make it very clear that we use the term “Calvinism” ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, and are NOT IN AGREEMENT with all that Calvin taught.
That Calvin contributed a lot to the system that bares his name we do not deny. But even though we may quote a few things from the works of Calvin, our appeal is NOT TO CALVIN OR ANY CONFESSIONS OR CREEDS OF THE CHURCHES, BUT TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY OF LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
Historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead.
Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of a mere MAN - John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and the conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our OWN EXEGESIS AND EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS THE FIVE POINTS.
If John Calvin believed what the Spirit of God has taught us in our personal study of God’s Word and our experience in our preaching ministry, then good for him! But it means NOTHING TO US!
We be persuaded that the Spirit of God would have by and by taught us these glorious truths WHETHER THERE WAS A CALVIN OR NOT!
No infant comes into the world knowing everything, but learns as he grows! Even so a truly born again child of God may have many misconceptions concerning the nature and method of his salvation at first, but if he is saved at all, then the Spirit will by and by teach him what He means when He says that “It is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that showeth mercy”! [Romans 9:16]
“But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day”! [Proverbs 4:18]
Whatever glorifies God 100%, THAT is what is right!
The doctrines of grace which we hold gives God ALL THE GLORY and puts man where He belongs, i.e. IN THE DUST!
“Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1]
You are either an Arminian or a Calvinist! You either believe that Salvation is ALL OF GOD, or you believe that it is partly of God and partly of man!
There is NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Those who pretend that they are neither Arminians nor “Calvinists” are in reality hypocrites! They suppose that they are neutral! But in matters pertaining to the doctrines of Soteriology (salvation) there are NO NEUTRALS!
NOBODY IS NEUTRAL! EVERYBODY HAS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST!
Only ONE side can be right and only ONE side can be wrong, so in claiming to be neutral and pretending to see right and wrong on both sides, the neutral puts himself above everybody.
He is the most righteous of all. He can see how everybody’s a little bit wrong but him and he is the only one right-the only one who really sees the truth, which he claims is somewhere in-between, which makes him the worst liar and most treacherous enemy of all! As Jesus said “He that is not for Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” [Matthew 12:30]
You either believe fallen man is totally depraved and CANNOT come to God of his own ‘free-will’ or you don’t! [John 6:44]
You either believe God has elected a CERTAIN NUMBER and sovereignly ordained them to eternal life or you don’t! [Acts 13:48]
You either believe that Christ laid down His life FOR THE SHEEP and them alone, as he said He did, or you don’t! [John 10:15]
You either believe that the Holy Spirit DRAWS God’s chosen by an IRRESISTIBLE POWER or you don’t! [Jeremiah 31:3]
And finally you either believe Christ saves FULLY AND FINALLY those whom He died for unto the end or you don’t! [Hebrews 7:25]
There is no MIDDLE GROUND HERE!
I know what have written might sound harsh and ‘un-loving’, but “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the TRUTH”?! [Galatians 4:16].
If you choose to believe that fallen, depraved man has a ‘free-will’ to either accept or reject Christ, and that the spiritually dead man can respond to God’s call anytime HE chooses, you are free to do so.
But I believe that if you are TRULY SAVED by the Spirit of God and have ‘the root of the matter in you’ [Job 19:28] then God will sooner or later open your eyes to the truth of that word - “it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy”!! [Romans 9:16].
Please know that I shall be praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of His absolute sovereignty and show you that our God is STILL the Absolute Sovereign who has ‘mercy on WHOM HE WILL and hardens WHOM HE WILL and NONE can say unto Him “what doest Thou”?! [Daniel 4:35]
John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com
minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
Lol... “And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.””
John 12:32
John Stewart why would you pray for me .. God has decreed me to think this way according to your beief
God wants to be reconciled to the world... 2 Corinthians 5:19
salvation is for all who believe...he came to save the world “God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.”
John 3:17
Your God chose people before time to be saved “the elect”.... left the rest of them with out any hope.....John 3:16 is a lie if your god is right... God holds out his hands all day wishing they would come to him... but they don’t believe.... that’s the facts... you quote scripture out of context.... the God of the Bible is fair and just and his call to salvation is a true call for all to come to him... your god just calls to everyone acting like he loves them when really he is playing a game knowing only the player he has picked will come to him... that’s sick and twisted
As a Bible Believeing Christian I agree with you. When you study Calvinism, the more you realize that they are in a totally different religion. They are not Christians. They hold their TULIP and theological systematic as their highest authority even over Scripture... to where they use the same Bible, but they twist and pervert it so much to where it becomes another Gospel. They believe in a pervertedGod, Jesus, Spirit and Gospel. In my opinion, they are in the snare of the devil and they are definitely not born again Christians. In order to be a Christian you have to believe in the true God, Jesus and Gospel... they sadly do not. They need to repent and come to Christ. 🙏 ❤️
Amen, amen, AMEN!
We were encouraged to teach like a Calvinist and evangelise like an Arminian - I decided to stick to who I knew (Jesus) and so share Him and His Gospel instead. That stance has served me well, apart from those times when I found myself amongst Christians who were stoically one or the other. It has seemed to me that some place more importance in this subject than love.
I am not persuaded we should ‘teach like a Calvinist’. Especially since it’s not biblical.
The number of views shows the interest yet no commitment to agree either way with likes? Great discussion and ministry. Thank you!
I really wish Dr Flowers would explain the application or fruit manifest by these specific views. This is NOT about some intellectual exercise, this is about living life and relating to God, others and self yes? OK...so what are the fruits born from these views...what does it really matter?
I would say there is only good which can come from the love of the truth. If these things are new and go against what you have been taught or understand I am sure it is somewhat painful.
Frankly though, it mainly concerns the way in which we define God's character. This straightens out how God is love and completely holy. And man is the author of his sins and for separating himself from God. Man is failing by his own freedom to do so. And God has, in His full sovereignty, made His image bearers to freely respond, or not, to His grace.
This demonstrates man being fully responsible for his sin, and God only desiring and willing for men to come to a knowledge of the truth.
God has not caused the evil, but only made a world where evil could manifest. By the freedom of men to walk away from His goodness. For evil is whatever is not embracing Gods will. The negation of the good which freely flows from who God is.
And the fullness of His goodness is only fully known and manifested by the freedom to choose it. Which IS love. Embracing the gospel or testimony of Jesus and doing His commandments. By learning about and knowing God. Through scripture, prayer, and sharing the good news of the gospel. And when we choose that relationship we will be conformed to His image which plays out in keeping His commandments.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME --thoughtful response. yet everything you shared is what i have experienced in what Dr Flowers would label a "Calvinist pastor" my original question was not answered however...that being HOW do these different beliefs or interpretations of scripture manifest themselves in people's lives? Dr Flowers is correct when he says the Calvinist is not consistent, and then goes onto to explain how if view X was taken to fullness, it would mean Y. Only an extreme "hyper-Calvinist" lives that way...but these issues are important when handled properly. it is really apologetics to the church itself...which demands gentleness and love!
As he defends the free will.....it was already ara he is a Pelagian, because the man has freedom, not free will, besides he defends that the man is not born in sin.....help me man!! !! stick with the Bible. There are no sects that are not synergistic,,,,,,,,,,, only he didn't realize his heresy
Marcos López
Get Dr. James White on your program now to be balanced.
That’s what I’m talking about.
@@paul.etedder2439 I would Be honored to host a debate between the two of them. I love Dr. Whites Ministry
The Remnant Radio they’ve already debated, but I’m not sure James White is interested on truly understanding Provisionism, based on past interactions and episodes.
Jordan Hartley I agree. But he has an open invitation either way.
@@mrhartley85 - Based on JW's comments, I think he understands Provisionism just fine. He just rejects it as beneath him. At least, that's the sense I get.
I can't blame him: Many of Leighton's ideas make no sense to me when run to their natural conclusion. Here's just one of many:
- he cringes in horror at the thought of God knowingly and deliberately making hellbound men and *decreeing* them to hell
- he's perfectly fine with God knowingly and deliberately making hellbound men but *allowing* them to go to hell.
Ummmm... Is that not a distinction w/o a difference? Why couldn't God use His foresight and simply chosen 1) to not make those men; 2) have them die in infancy so they'd go to heaven.
Yet He deliberately does not choose either of those options. He allows them to live full lives of rebellion. At that point, does it matter if they were "decreed" or "knowingly and intentionally allowed"?
At least WLCraig will say (with a straight face) "Perhaps He couldn't have done otherwise" (in other words, "perhaps God isn't as omnipotent as He claims".)
If Leighton Flowers can't convince you, neither will you be persuaded should a man rise from the dead.
Who gives men ears to hear and eyes to see and legs to walk ? Tell me if you Dunce SCOTUS knows
So...would we call this guy a ......reformed reformer!?! Badum tsss (I'll see my way out)
Huh???
@@roxannejouglard1649 like a rimshot on drums....Ba-dum Tsss!
Really great discussion on the book of Romans...
Calvanist god is not the God of the Bible.
Great episode
I wish you guys had timestamps..
So good!
If total depravity is true then what happens to babies who die?
What a carnal flesh feast watching 3 lovers of self glorying in their flesh-o-gesis scriptural interpretation methodology. Wells without water never quench the thirst of the elect.
Question, why would God at the hands of a believer, require the blood of an unbeliever that he wouldn't witness too, if God decrees who will be witnessed too, and saved?
Molinism is where it's at. Read William Lane Craig's Only Wise God and Kenneth Keathley's Salvation and Sovereignty. There are scholarly, biblically based alternatives to the Calvinist/Arminian dichotomy.
I'm new here, what happened to Jeff, the co-host "instigator"? I don't see him on new shows.
Love what y'all are doing, keep it up. Thanks.
The best argument against total depravity is having kids and spending time with them. Innocent children do both bad things and good things. You have to be a monster to say your children are totally depraved (although it may feel like that at times lol)😅
Lol I have children and I love them to death but if i were to not teach them to be good and discipline them when they are bad they would kill each other over a toy. Have you ever noticed you don’t have to teach a child to lie or to be brutal to other children?
@ForGodsGlory yes, good job for noticing that kids do bad things. There is sin in people, but it's not TOTAL depravity, or else they would be incapable of doing good. It's the logic of total depravity that makes no sense when taken to this level.
@@abeautifulmoment2714 Don’t mistake total depravity for utter depravity. Remember no one does good not even one. The action and intention must be good and if it is not from faith and done to the glory of God is it really and truly good? If that’s the case I know a lot more good people than I do bad. How does it not make sense?
@ForGodsGlory Look up the definitions for "total" and "utter" - they are the same. This is why Calvinist isms are so strange.
This is where it is good to have some biblical literacy. When it says "no-one does good" it does not mean LITERALLY no- one does good (it cannot, because objectively people do good things - and yes, often for honorable reasons! After all, you are made in the image of God and he created humans to be good.) Its just that we have sin IN us, and we need to be redeemed of it - however, that does not make us ALL good or ALL bad (your comment implies it's an all or nothing thing.)
The Bible never says once a righteous work is only righteous if it brings God glory. However, it does say all people sin (so none are righteous completely) and we all need a savior because of it. This, however, does not mean that there wasn't SOME good in us to begin with!
@@abeautifulmoment2714 I’m not referring to the words I’m referring to the doctrines. They are different. It actually does mean that none do good…. Not even one. Our most righteous works are like filthy rags before God. No we really don’t people could do many things that may seem good with intentions that are wicked even if to you it doesn’t seem like it and honorable to who?
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.
Yes He did create man upright then Adam fell. Righteous completely? Your either righteous or not there is no kinda righteous. There was good to begin with but that was in Adam.
Dr. Flowers speaking intermittently from 54:19 to 56:44: "My position is, I think it (Molinism) is a sufficient philosophical answer to the issue of omniscience and free will. I don't think it is a necessary explanation. In other words, I don't think in order to be a theologian, to read your Bible, you have to adopt Molinism... It's named after Luis Molina ... it's basically a philosophical explanation of how God's ominiscience works...There's a thing called 'middle knowledge' which is God knows all possible contingencies, all possible worlds... God knows not only what you will do, He also knows everything you could do given different situations and circumstances... And so it's explaining how God has sovereignly, in His foreknowledge and knowledge of all things, can still bring about a world with libertarian free creatures who have the ability to make free, self-determined choices ... and so it's a philosophical explanation of how that works...There's other philosophies like Boethius - The Consolation of Philosophy written in the 5th century was the most predominant philosophy of most theologians who held to libertarian free will and ominiscience. It's what C.S. Lewis proposed and I actually agree more with that perspective. Again, I don't think it's a necessary position either, but I think it is sufficient to explain how God can be ominiscient but not deterministic. Whereas the Calvinist ultimately says ominiscience demands determinism, and I just don't think that it rational."
Response: Regarding the three persons mentioned in this passage, in historical chronological order, they are:
1. Boethius: (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) "Roman statesman and philosopher, often styled 'the last of the Romans', regarded by tradition as a Christian martyr, born at Rome in 480; died at Pavia in 524 or 525. .. The local cult of Boethius at Pavia was sanctioned when, in 1883, the Sacred Congregation of Rites confirmed the custom prevailing in that diocese of honouring St. Severinus Boethius, on the 23rd of October." In other words, Boethius is permitted by the Catholic Church to be venerated as a local saint in Pavia, Italy.
2. Luis de Molina: (from Wikipedia) "...(29 September 1535 - 12 October 1600) was a Spanish Jesuit priest and scholastic, a staunch defender of free will in the controversy over human liberty and God's grace. His theology is known as Molinism."
3. John Calvin: (from Wikipedia) " ...(10 July 1509 - 27 May 1564) was a French theologian, pastor and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation."
MacArthur has never got past the ‘caged’ stage.
Great show guys!!
“Calvinism/Arminianism debate”
Arminianism is a branch of Calvinism. It’s just Arminius Calvinism vs Beza Calvinism. Two sides of the same Augustinian Gnostic coin.
I am neither a calvinist nor an arminian.
Calvinist often are astonished when non Calvinists say people can "have heard the gospel and have their sins atoned for by Christs death and resurrection" but not be saved or a believer.
Non Calvinsts just mean, because of the freewill of man, given by God to the human family, can reject to " take hold" of the freely offered, currently paid in full on their behalf, offering of salvation. Which is only transacted upon their decision to lay hold of the free gift.
Available, but waiting for the person to accept after hearing the call from Gods family, when they preach the good news and call to repentance and the forgiveness of sins by God to the broken and spiritually dead members of the human family.
I think what Calvinists are astonished at, is how non-Calvinists take the beautiful promises of what God has accomplished, is accomplishing and will accomplish in salvation and muddy it all by turning Christ's finished work on the cross into a potentiality which hinges on the will and desires of sinful man. I don't know who first came up with the horrendous analogy of salvation being some kind of *potential* bank transaction, but whoever it was deserves 40 minus 1 stripes.
The Father's wrath was satisfied on the cross, that is what it means for Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice. The Father poured out the wrath that was due to sinners onto Christ and he paid the penalty for those sins. This didn't *potentially* happen, it *actually* happened. Christ's sacrifice in our place satisfies the wrath of The Father, so that His divine mercy does not compromise His justice. Because Christ died in our place we can have PEACE with God, hallelujah!
See, the problem with making salvation a *potentiality* which is *available* but not a *certainty* is you completely destroy the message of the cross. For The Father to punish the Son and then punish the sinner on judgement day would be an injustice, we call that double-jeopardy. Either God's wrath was satisfied at Calvary or it wasn't. The Father did not *potentially* pour out His wrath and Christ did not *potentially* suffer and die. The non-Calvinist message of The cross becomes "God has done 99.9% of the work but he needs YOU to make it happen!" and I think the reason this horrible mistake get's made is that in this modern age we simply do not realise how wretched we are without Christ.
I think if Non-Calvinists recognised the depth and breadth of their sinfulness they would not think to judge The Lord for choosing to save many and insist that He must instead attempt to save all.
Do you guys even read what you write?
"Beautiful Promises of what God has accomplished, is accomplishing and will accomplish"
"Which is only transacted upon their decision"
And you guys are serious about that.
I thought Jesus finished and sat down.
@@billyr9162 : Hi Billy R thank you for your reply, although I think perhaps I was not clear in my reply to jamie Russell.
I agree 100% that Jesus finished and sat down at the right hand of The Father. My comment on God's promises and what he is accomplishing in present and future tense is in regard to Jesus building His church; people being saved daily. I believe that people today are being saved 100% based on God's choices and 0% based on man's "decision" to accept a "transaction".
@@christophersmith7412
Can you see at all where I be confused about what you're saying?
At first you said it was man's decision to transact. Isn't a decision a choice?
It seems as though you clearly have man as the deciding final factor in his salvation. Without man's decision, salvation won't happen.
Can you say in a sentence exactly what Jesus finished?
As I understand it Jesus is the last high priest the world will ever need and he is sitting down in the holy of holies and the only thing he's doing from now on is interceding for his people. The saving part is already done on the cross. That's what was finished. So the continuing to save thing is confusing to me.
@@billyr9162 : you seem confused because you're attributing a quote from someone else to me.
Also, as an added note to all those who love John Calvin so much, may I remind you he was indeed very wrong on some matters. It might be a mistake to argue he was an exceptional scholar beyond compare.
Here is a good example of questionable scholarship on his part:
"Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex." - John Calvin
Answer, Mike Winger and Dr. Andy Wood s
Subbed. Keep up the thoughtful interviews!
no-one was baptized in the name of Calvin and Calvin didn't suffer on the cross for anyone the moment he was condemned to death in France postumously he ran for Geneva .
In one camp you can find exegesis.....the other will lead you to Jesus.
From the empty tomb, they lead you down a rabbit hole.....
calvinizers I mean , down the hole...
If I take my eyes off HRH the CHRIST I will sink beneath the waves like PETER!!!
Ok, so I opened this hoping to learn why Dr. Flowers is not a Calvinist, and 15 minutes in all I’ve heard is how divisive and “aggressive” Calvinists are and how “open minded” Arminians are.
And he’s correct in my experience
@@JamesLee-pb6dl There are some "young Turk" reformed men out there beating their chests for sure; however, he oly needs to say it once or twice--I clicked on this video to learn what theological arguments he has with Calvinism.
Flowers lies about this point… just to win an argument
You are the liar
Have you tried Scott Hann?
Michael Lawlor not yet. But we would love to have him on. If you happen to know him, or you are just a fan of his work, let him know he has an open invitation on Remnant.
@@TheRemnantRadio I'm a big fan of his work, yes, but don't know him. He has a Facebook page, I can see if he can mail him there. He certainly wouldn't like to disappoint.
I would start by reminding you, that it was NOT CALVIN who said - “I lay down My life for THE SHEEP”! [John 10:11] Again it wasn’t Calvin who said, “No man CAN COME to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me DRAW HIM”! [John 6:44] Neither said he - “AS MANY as were ORDAINED to eternal life believed”! [Acts 13:48]
Now I want to make it very clear that we use the term “Calvinism” ONLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, and are NOT IN AGREEMENT with all that Calvin taught.
That Calvin contributed a lot to the system that bares his name we do not deny. But even though we may quote a few things from the works of Calvin, our appeal is NOT TO CALVIN OR ANY CONFESSIONS OR CREEDS OF THE CHURCHES, BUT TO THE LAW AND TESTIMONY OF LORD GOD ALMIGHTY.
Historically speaking, the so-called “Doctrines of Grace” - which go by the nickname of Calvinism - did not originate with Calvin. They are the result of a Synod held in Dort, Holland in 1618/19, after Calvin was long dead.
Those of us who hold to Reformed Theology do so not because we are attempting to replicate the theology or ecclesiology of a mere MAN - John Calvin, but because we are convinced that the Biblical arguments and the conclusions stemming from that Synod are valid and our OWN EXEGESIS AND EXPERIENCE CONFIRMS THE FIVE POINTS.
If John Calvin believed what the Spirit of God has taught us in our personal study of God’s Word and our experience in our preaching ministry, then good for him! But it means NOTHING TO US!
We be persuaded that the Spirit of God would have by and by taught us these glorious truths WHETHER THERE WAS A CALVIN OR NOT!
No infant comes into the world knowing everything, but learns as he grows! Even so a truly born again child of God may have many misconceptions concerning the nature and method of his salvation at first, but if he is saved at all, then the Spirit will by and by teach him what He means when He says that “It is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that showeth mercy”! [Romans 9:16]
“But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day”! [Proverbs 4:18]
Whatever glorifies God 100%, THAT is what is right!
The doctrines of grace which we hold gives God ALL THE GLORY and puts man where He belongs, i.e. IN THE DUST!
“Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth’s sake”! [Psalm 115:1]
You are either an Arminian or a Calvinist! You either believe that Salvation is ALL OF GOD, or you believe that it is partly of God and partly of man!
There is NO MIDDLE GROUND!
Those who pretend that they are neither Arminians nor “Calvinists” are in reality hypocrites! They suppose that they are neutral! But in matters pertaining to the doctrines of Soteriology (salvation) there are NO NEUTRALS!
NOBODY IS NEUTRAL! EVERYBODY HAS A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST!
Only ONE side can be right and only ONE side can be wrong, so in claiming to be neutral and pretending to see right and wrong on both sides, the neutral puts himself above everybody.
He is the most righteous of all. He can see how everybody’s a little bit wrong but him and he is the only one right-the only one who really sees the truth, which he claims is somewhere in-between, which makes him the worst liar and most treacherous enemy of all! As Jesus said “He that is not for Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad.” [Matthew 12:30]
You either believe fallen man is totally depraved and CANNOT come to God of his own ‘free-will’ or you don’t! [John 6:44]
You either believe God has elected a CERTAIN NUMBER and sovereignly ordained them to eternal life or you don’t! [Acts 13:48]
You either believe that Christ laid down His life FOR THE SHEEP and them alone, as he said He did, or you don’t! [John 10:15]
You either believe that the Holy Spirit DRAWS God’s chosen by an IRRESISTIBLE POWER or you don’t! [Jeremiah 31:3]
And finally you either believe Christ saves FULLY AND FINALLY those whom He died for unto the end or you don’t! [Hebrews 7:25]
There is no MIDDLE GROUND HERE!
I know what have written might sound harsh and ‘un-loving’, but “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the TRUTH”?! [Galatians 4:16].
If you choose to believe that fallen, depraved man has a ‘free-will’ to either accept or reject Christ, and that the spiritually dead man can respond to God’s call anytime HE chooses, you are free to do so.
But I believe that if you are TRULY SAVED by the Spirit of God and have ‘the root of the matter in you’ [Job 19:28] then God will sooner or later open your eyes to the truth of that word - “it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy”!! [Romans 9:16].
Please know that I shall be praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of His absolute sovereignty and show you that our God is STILL the Absolute Sovereign who has ‘mercy on WHOM HE WILL and hardens WHOM HE WILL and NONE can say unto Him “what doest Thou”?! [Daniel 4:35]
John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com
minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
Come on brother!!!
You should read Leighton's books. I think you will find that he answers your objections much more robustly than what you were able to present them.
The Thumbnail !!
Small very light correction... I'm sorry if this sounds pedantic.
1)- Molinism relies on a concept of middle knowledge that posits that God knows everything person x WOULD do in situation y.
Not COULD.
Could implies open contracausality, which is more in alignment with Open Theism.
Molinism posits instead that in any given world with a given group of humans those humans in those circumstances WILL reliably produce a given action from that person.
The variables are:
the world posited before God created.
The person x who lives in that world.
The situation person x is in in that specific posited possible world.
Once those values are plugged in in the mind of God the concept is that God's middle knowledge results in a 100% certain result for those variables. There's no other way you'd actually ever do something other than you actually do because it's the knowledge of wgat person x certainly WOULD do in situation Y.
It sounds like it solves the problem of foreknowledge, Providence and free will, but it does so only by envisioning any given human x as being the sort of entity that would ALWAYS do action/sin/repentance/etc in situation Y.
But this doesn't fit how we imagine the human deliberative process occurring in a genuine modernivertaruan free will model of sin, psychology and soteriology.
The formula that resolves those values into an answer is of course a mystery, so it just punts to the idea that God is so smart that he can sort that out easily, but it's still punting to mystery with the solution being an illusion rooted in the idea that those variables can reliably produce a given outcome of they're plugged in to this mysterious formula.
Personally I find it more compelling that God knows what we COULD do, but his mastery of the variables us such that he has a means to achieve his will in a creative mysterious process regardless of our decisions being genuinely "could" instead of "would" type actions and deliberations.
Though let's be frank, as we get old we get pretty set in our ways, a former of middle knowledge is definitely at play too, but it's not this pristine super-simultion that Molina imagined. It's vaster.
Well it's difficult trying persuade Jewish people that they have rejected their SAVIOUR!!!!
They must ultimately be the potter or God making God the Savior that He wants to be by their wills
That would be damnable. Strawmen are not worth propping up.
Of course God is the Sovereign Actor and only Savior by which we can be saved. Without His first action, we would have no hope. We just recognize the fact that men will be punished or rewarded by the righteous judgement and execution of justice by God.
If you didn't realize, punishing someone who could not have done otherwise is immoral. The fact that we u derstand justice as a concept would suggest men have a free will to do right or wrong.
What's with the thumbnail of Leighton punching out John Calvin? What disrespect for someone who has passed away .
@Apologia5
And as scholars there really not comparison.
@@pateunuchity884 Lies.
Relax
Calvin was a murderer
I disagree. I don't think you should study calvanism at all. I think you should stay a million miles away from it.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you
John 17: 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Romans 9 :15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
All you did was post various proof texts out of context... were you trying to make a point? If you read the entire chapters of those verses you will find out that the context contradicts the Calvinistic doctrines.
For example: John 6:44... did you stop there? Read:
John 6:45
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Also, you have an issue in a few chapters afterward in John 12:32
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--- Also in John 15... the context is that Jesus is talking to His Apostles, that verse does not apply to anyone else but the Apostles:
John 6:70
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Also, the prayer in John 17... did you read the full thing?! In the beginning He is praying for His Apostles, then near the end He prays for the entire world: John 17
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
You need to read your Bible and stop being lazy. Calvinism is a false religion and it is keeping you from the truth of Christ.
@@eiontactics9056 John 17: 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
@@STEVEinNC Did you read the whole prayer or even know the context?
Jesus starts off by praying for His Apostles and says why. Then:
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 *** Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;***
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: ***that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.***
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
@@eiontactics9056
Correct, all the world will believe, those on the earth and under the earth, that Jesus was sent by the Father and is Lord, every single one will believe and confess, but it won't be a saving belief for most since there's only remnant chosen by God's sovereign grace and choice - Romans 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Philippians 2:9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Romans 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls- 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-
@@STEVEinNC I can go over those proof texts you posted out of context, but you have not really responded to my reply:
The context in the prayer is that those who were given to Jesus at that time were the 12 Apostles, not some unconditional elected before the foundations. Jesus is praying that they continue in faith and preach the Gospel to the world, so that the world can believe and be saved by their word.
I was pointing out that you cherry picked a verse out of context to seemingly support a false doctrine.
You have to read the full context of Scripture, and only derive presuppositions from what the text actually says and leave out what it doesn't say. Your issue is that you discount context and actual meaning of these verses and read into them your TULIP (which Scripture does not support).
This is why it is very frustrating dealing with Scripture with a Calvinist. You literally have to try to re-teach them Scripture and the Gospel and at the same time you have to deal with their misunderstandings and paradigm. It boggles my mind how one can claim to be a Christian, but literally act so blind to Scripture to the point where they don't even know the Gospel of Christ.
any lie stays a lie !
the word lie in Hebrew is an anagram of knot , and thats what we do when we lie we create knots , if you have to go so far as to twist text, replace words .
for example :
from the beginning of the world to before the beginning of the world .
to make your new religion tread water .
just to make your argument stronger , when it's forbidden to change scripture .
then you've just started another gospel .
Calvin is another religion,they believe in Christ ,the anointed and go as so far as to say they are the anointed and eveyone else is created for HELL .
Thé extremes of putting men doctrines before the infallible Word of God is dangerous we stick with the writing word period those men were good in their times but we live in the age of more information so is healthy to know their point of view but the gospel is unchanged world and is the only way to know the truth of God and all about our final destiny.
DID CHRIST DEATH ATONE FOR FOR 1 Samuel chapter 3 verses 13,14
Only those who are born again have free will. This is the way Jesus saw the idea of freedom in John 8:32: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” And this is the way Paul talks about freedom in Romans 6: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delievered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18).
A Technical Definition
The more technical definition of free will that some people use is this: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined.
The key word here is ultimate, or decisive. The point is not just that choices are self-determined, but that the self is the ultimate or decisive determiner. The opposite of this definition would be that God is the only being who is ultimately self-determining, and is himself ultimately the disposer of all things, including all choices - however many or diverse other intervening causes are.
On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Neither before or after the fall, or in heaven, are creatures ultimately self-determining. There are great measures of self-determination, as the Bible often shows, but never is man the ultimate or decisive cause of his preferences and choices.
When man’s agency and God’s agency are compared, both are real, but God’s is decisive. Yet - and here’s the mystery that causes so many to stumble - God is always decisive in such a way that man’s agency is real, and his responsibility remains.
But Isn’t This Inconceivable?
I say that many stumble at this because they regard it as inconceivable. My own view is that the Bible does teach this - the compatibility of God’s decisive sovereignty and man’s responsibility. If this seems inconceivable to you, I would plead that you not let that keep you from believing what the Bible teaches.
But it might be helpful to draw in one attempt to help make sense of this. Can a person’s acts be justly regarded as praiseworthy or blameworthy if those acts flow from a good or evil nature that inclines him in only one way?
Here is part of John Calvin’s answer to this objection:
The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness that he can do nothing but evil.
Should anyone give utterance to the profane jeer that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, “It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil”?
Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning?
So much more can be said. Questions abound. My plea is that you focus on the actual teaching of the Scriptures. Try not to bring philosophical presuppositions to the text (presuppositions like: human accountability cannot coexist with God’s decisively working “all things according to the counsel of his will,” Ephesians 1:11). Let the Bible speak fully and deeply. Trust that someday we will no longer see in a mirror dimly, but face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12).
John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com
minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
A problem I see that is overlooked by anti Calvinist ministries is the matter of eschatological fixed TIME or fixed NUMBER. Is there a FIXED TIME for the rapture or return of Jesus Christ (whatever your brand of age termination eschatology demands) or a FIXED NUMBER of saints that must be reached to terminate the age? The Bible itself has no explicit statement from genesis to revelation about the termination of the age through the salvation of a fixed number of converts. Jesus does talk explicitly about the DAY & HOUR being a SET FIXED DATE & TIME that God the Father ALONE has set & knows & DOES NOT CHANGE. Matt 24:36 Matt 25:13 Mark 13:32 Where however is this fixed number of saints referenced at? Yet Calvinists & traditionalists constantly adhere to the FIXED NUMBER of saints. If Calvinism were true then the un Biblical notion FIXED NUMBER of saints is understandable for to them Christ died only for a certain select few. Though God in His Omniscience does know the number of saints that will be present at that time( as well as all their classification into gender number race religion nationality etc), there is nowhere in the scriptures He says that there is ONLY A FIXED NUMBER of saints. Show me even one verse you Calvinists where God explicitly tells of a given fixed number of saints. Your theology is from the white spaces. God's offer of salvation to mankind is thus specifically stated "FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME ONLY!!" Eschatologically speaking that limit is bounded by the return of Jesus Christ to judge the world &/or swap the terms & conditions of salvation for some other less glorious harder to secure package ie if you are a dispensationist. Pragmatically speaking the offer of salvation is limited by 1) Your lifespan. 2) Your intellectual power to determine what the terms of salvation are & are not & fulfill them ie what to believe what not to believe & what if anything else you must do... the only other possible exception is those that die in infancy or intellectual immaturity. The pragmatic considerations are also limited by the eschatological limit if you happen to be here at the termination of the age. Just like a newspaper coupon salvation is FREE for a limited time ONLY. However if you anti Calvinist traditionalists keep on insisting that God is interested in achieving a number of saints & keep on ignoring the statement that the time of the offer is fixed, then what you got is some sort of perverted musical chair game. You put a limited number of seats all around then you call everyone marching around them to sit down in them & when the last seat is occupied then the game is over & the music stops. In essence what difference is there between that & Calvinism? Well there is a difference. I suppose the difference is that Jesus Christ only died for so many but the determination is made by the freedom to choose to sit in an unoccupied seat or not before the rest of humanity fills up the seats. Did God really build a place in Heaven for all men? Or did God only build a place in heaven for a few, "frozen chosen" or otherwise determined by libertarian free will? Will heaven be full of unoccupied real estate if indeed Christ died for all mankind? Empty Berkshire Hathaway homes all up for sale? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Soteriology101
There is nothing showing that John Calvin believed the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It sure has nothing of it in his commentaries and a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvin’s writings. It was a counter reaction on the Synod of Dordrecht against the Five articles of the Remonstrants [Arminius] 60 year after John Calvin had passed away. Calvin sure believed that the wrath of God came on Christ for the sins of the whole world which is Biblical. The importants of limited atonement is minor and hypothetical.
We find support that John Calvin did not concern himself with Thoughts of Limited Atonement in some of his commentaries.
BY JOHN CALVIN MARCH 5, 2010
“Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Sermon on Ephesians 5:11-14]
“The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of His love toward the Church in shedding His own blood for it. Whereby it appeared how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offence, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish ...” [Commentary on Acts 20:28]
“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.” [Commentary on Romans 5:18]
“True it is that the effect of His death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered His death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them ...” [Sermon CXVI on the Book of Job (31:29-32)]
“The word many is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.” [Commentary on Matthew 20:28]
www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm
Soteriology101
W hiskey T ango F oxtrot is the same as to say it in full
_Your intellectual power to determine what the terms of salvation are_
Bunch of heresy on steroids. Believing in the gospel is a matter of intellectual power? What a farce.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 You must understand a statement before you can believe it or reject it. Maybe then you should preach the gospel to the birds of the air & the beasts of the field to see how they respond.
"IF A PROPHET BE DECEIVED, I THE LORD HAS DECEIVED THAT PROPHET, AND WILL DESTROY HIM" !! PS: CALVIN OR BUST !! "THOU ART BESIDE THYSELF", MR WILTED FLOWERS !!
John Stewart ahhh? Context??
Oi vey!
@check out beyond the fundamental s if you can invite him
Does Remnant Radio ever have discussions or people on whom they have a theological disagreement with? I like what you guys were saying in regards to being theologically diverse in your study's and to whom you lean on for teachers. Not being stuck in an echo chamber. I've watched the discussion on baptism with you guys and Mike Winger and have some disagreements about it. I would like have an open dialogue conversation with you guys about baptism and its role
Jacob Inglett email me at josh.remnantradio@gmail.com
Wrong again on y’alls interpretation of spiritual deadness. Jesus directly compared physical deadness with spiritual deadness in this verse. Matthew 8:22 KJVS
[22] But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Just to let you know, the vast majority of Scholarly Christians, cringe any time someone uses the KJV. If you want to build a good argument drop the KJV thing. Sorry to burst your bubble but yeah.
It seems to me that contemporary "believers" indeed are blown about by every wind of doctrine, precisely because they, themselves, have FAILED to commit themselves to the proper study of the Scriptures. To say it another way they lack the Berean spirit seen in Acts 17:11.
Moreover, they FAIL to comprehend the major connections of the whole counsel of God. For example, in what way is the fall and doctrine of original sin connected to the rest of Scripture? How you view the doctrine of original sin MUST, OF NECESSITY, determine how you view the rest of the plan of redemption!
So, what does that mean? It means this: that if you embrace a pelagian or semi-pelagian view (the teaching concerning the manner in which mans' will is free or as Luther and many others, rightly believe(d), imprisoned, cast OUT of the garden of Eden and in exile, like John the writer of Revelation on Patmos, and only free within the confines of a fallen and sinful nature; under the curse of sin and death, and naturally an enemy and against God) of the fall, like Roman Catholicism, then you WILL fail to comprehend the biblical and necessary connections to salvation. How many local congregations have true undershepherds that actually teach the foundational problem that led mankind to be under the curse of sin and death? How many of them actually understand the implications of that event and see that ALL that follows is DIRECTLY connected to it? Did God cover their sin and are Adam and Eve among the redeemed? If yes, how did that happen? Did they DECIDE to obey Him as a means to salvation or as a result of being saved? Is it possible to obey, AS A MEANS TO SALVATION? Or must the KING OF GLORY initiate it from beginning to end? So much more could be stated. But I am NOT the Holy Spirit and it is His work that convinces men of the truth! Men merely respond to the call of God who effectually initiates His call by His Spirit! e.g. Gen. 12:1-3; Gen. 15:12-21 Joshua 24:1-5 and many, many more places.
To say we hear the gospel we believe in the gospel and then we are mark by the Holy Spirit it's not exact BECAUSE ONLY Jesus sheep can hear is voice and NOBODY ELSE!! BECAUSE we know Him and this is what is making the separation between the good seed and the tares born at night and for to believe a man have to be in the Spirit or IN Christ , the same thing also go for repentance : a sinners CANNOT REPENT (mea culpa mea maxima culpa) BECAUSE repentance it's a complete act of the Holy Spirit call sanctification. The tares will never come to the light because they CANNOT and this is the true Gospel.We are CHOSEN.
Michel Haineault you are putting the horse behind the wagon
@@albusai am putting God above all
James White next?
Good video. But the Driscoll mention 😔
19:45 Either I’m right, or God has decreed for me to be wrong...
This actually does make sense. God decreed Christ would be crucified by the men that did it but at the same time they did it because they were following the sinful desires of their hearts.
If Dr. Flowers continues to teach incorrect theology until the day God calls him home, it would only mean that God had a purpose in it. We can’t see what the purpose is in everything we encounter but if God has a decree we k is there is a purpose in everything. I’m willing to bet Naomi didn’t know why her husband and her sons died, we know now from Matthew 1 that it was for the purposes of bringing the Christ into the world exactly on time and as planned.
(Naomi brought Ruth back to Israel with her after her husband and sons died. Ruth and Boaz are in Jesus’s lineage)
All that to say, Naomi suffered great loss, but it was not purposeless.
Plain Wamby-namby.
Delete Romans 9 from a debate and most wouldn't be able to answer majority of rebuttals. I don't ask a Calvinist anything other than the heresy of their views. Which is, God works both sides of the chess board. If this is really 100 percent true no way to prove it not true,(which there is but I digress) then God breaks his own laws and rules which renders him no longer holy and unworthy to be the one true God. People that believe this fail to realize God can know all outcomes that could or even will happen without being their author. Most in the long run use this as an excuse to be spiritually lazy or feel better when they lose a debate with a unbeliever. Oh he can't see it anyway so whatever type of mentality. It's sad. I'm a provision believer til I die. To tell you the truth, if my family would have been Calvinist, I may have turned out hating God and that's no lie.
Hey Rico- thanks for the thoughts.
Since you're looking for stuff outside of Romans 9 ... Did you know that almost all of TULIP can be gleaned from the Pentateuch? Seriously - go look for yourself. (start here: read *all* of Deut 28. Then ask yourself what the heck v63 is there for. If it spins your head that God would punish them so, why is Deut 28 followed by 29:4. Read it in context, since this verse deals with chapter 29.)
And if you want something outside of Rom 9 that shows God playing "both sides of the chess board", try this verse:
[+] The LORD instructed Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, make sure you do all the wonders before Pharaoh that I have put within your power. *But* I will harden his heart *so that* he won’t let the people go. Then you will say to Pharaoh: This is what Yahweh says: Israel is My firstborn son. I told you: Let My son go so that he may worship Me, but you refused to let him go. Now I will kill your firstborn son! ” (Exod 4:21-23)
What was God's command? "Let them go"
What was God's action? Harden Pharaoh so that he would NOT let them go. And then kill Pharaoh's son because his dad disobeyed Moses (basically, passing the sins from the father to the son)
God is actually telling Moses that He's going to play both sides of that chessboard.
Weird, huh?
Leighton "we're the choice meats" Flowers
Arminius was a calvinist
A lot of broad brushing here. I would love to hear Dr James white on RR
Where is the broad brushing exactly?
Yeah, and for a guy who says understand both sides and not charicatires of them... He did a LOT of charicatiring.
There IS a demon of Calvinism. It IS a doctrine of demons because it teaches a different God, different Jesus, different gospel, and different Spirit. The God of Calvinism is who the devil would be if he were God, so it is literally devil worship.
I doubt most self identified Calvinists have the demon because most proclaiming Calvinists don't even know what it means or aren't 5 point Calvinists, but they hold some of the erroneous beliefs which could be demon portals for greater deception later on. But look at the 5 point and hypercalvinists--they are so hardened and un-Christ-like they are probably technically apostate.
A little leaven leavens the whole lump and Calvinism is bad leaven. It is poisoning the body of Christ. We must protect our gospel preaching churches from the demonic cancer that is Calvinism. Squash it when it rears it's head. Tolerance is not a virtue.
Best books that represent and defend the Reformed/Calvinist position on the Doctrine of God, Man & Salvation...
What About Free Will? By Scott Christensen
Whomever He Wills Edited by Matthew Barrett
Salvation by Grace by Matthew Barrett
Chosen for Life By Sam Storms
Chosen by God by RC Sproul
What is Reformed Theology? by RC Sproul
Willing To Believe by RC Sproul
12 What Abouts? by John Samson
The Potters Freedom by James R White
From Heaven He Came and Saught Her from Crossway Books
Best books that represent and Defend TheWay/Christianity : The Bible by YHWH
Calvin was a tool of Satan and still is.
@@cjclark9205 😂😂😂, this was in my heart. The Bible is always my first reference, 2nd and 3rd...10th, then the rest can follow as option 11...
If it's true that apostles and prophets are irrelevant as all calvinism know and believe, then why write books in addition to the Bible?
I am not saying that true Christian books are bad, but my point is that if anyone wants to know anything, I refer them to scripture and if they fail to understand and I can't reach them , then I can refer them to true scripture based sermon or book.
Daniel 9
I'm wondering how many of those commenting have actually read any of Calvin's writings.
No the argument is what Jesus says to nicodemus. That which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit. You must be born again! That which is flesh cannot do what is pleasing to God. And faith and repentance is pleasing to God. That’s the argument concerning total depravity.
Paul Smith ROMANS 8:8
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
This is talking about those living according to the flesh and not walking in the spirit.
HEBREWS 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: FOR HE THAT COMETH TO GOD MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that HE is a rewarder of THEM THAT DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM.
This verse in Hebrews says the exact opposite of what you just says.
It’s abundantly clear in scripture that faith is not a work.
Faith is not a work not because His has to gift it to us or cause us to have faith.
That’s not why faith is not considered a work.
Faith is not considered a work simply because God’s word SAYS it’s not a work!
God had sovereignly declared that faith is not a work.
So sure was this declaration that it’s actually a LAW.
God’s decreed it:
ROMANS 3:31
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.
When we act in faith according to God’s law and believe of our own freewill and not out of coercion we thereby do not countervail God’s sovereignty we actually FULLFILL IT!
WE ESTABLISH IT!
Calvinists think that man freely believing somehow detracts from God’s sovereignty when the exact opposite is true.
Calvinists unbeknownst to them actually detract from God’s glory in their own human effort to preserve it.
If God has sovereignly decreed that man should have free will and saving faith was to be a real genuine expression of that, then a Calvinist is actually fighting against and doing things contrary to God’s word.
God is most glorified when we obey what He’s decreed and follow after the patten He’s clearly laid out for us.
When we try and break that pattern or rearrange it do you think God is then pleased with us?
God does not need you to try and protect His glory by saying regeneration has to precede faith.
Don’t worry, God’s got this.
He just wants you to let go and trust that what He’s decreed is perfect.
In doing so He will be most glorified.
Don’t frustrate God.
God is PLEASED when we exercise faith.
How do you expect to please Him if it’s Him effectually causing you to believe.
Faith pleases Him so just relax it’s ok.
ROMANS 4:4,5
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
ROMANS 11:6
6 And IF BY GRACE, THEN IS IT NO MORE OF WORKS: otherwise grace is no more grace. BUT IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work.
**I’d encourage you to take the whole counsel of scripture and compare scripture with scripture and verses like Romans 8:8 fit perfectly and are easily understood with no contradiction.
The Coming Kingdom prove your statement, assertions like that need to be given some kind of reference. Nicodemus who was second temple Pharisee had no clue but you do somehow, care to share?
The Coming Kingdom I’m looking for primary sources, not commentaries. I asked specifically because there is nothing from that time period I’ve read regarding that. I’ve researched this topic and commentaries are not the same thing.
The Coming Kingdom yeah, I’ve read through the apocryphal books, Josephus, Philo and some historical Bible backgrounds and what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Jesus’s statement was radical and ‘heavenly’ so that it wasn’t something thought or taught before. So unless you can back up your point with an actual reference beyond ‘look up this commentary’ I don’t think you’ve proved your assertion.
The Coming Kingdom his reference was to the Spirit and water of Ezekiel 36, that I agree with, what you said was that this was common thought in second temple Judaism which it wasn’t.... I would like to read what you have but you have yet to give me anything what you’re saying is like if I told you ‘read Josephus and you’ll get it’ you’re not given me anything to go on.
Love how you say it is gnostic thought when gnostic wasn’t even around until after Jesus’s death... it wasn’t even fully formed until much later but you got your beliefs and that’s okay... I just wouldn’t toss assertions like that around without backing it up.
Yet Leighton, makes the assertion that God gave man dominion. And that dominion =autonomous free will. But when I asked him to exegete from the text his assertion he deflected the question and didn’t answer the question!!
So why do we have notions of good and bad? Since all things done by men are simply the decree of God. All things, deeds and actions of every atom in the universe, are meticulously controlled by the will and power of God. Ordained by Him before time began.
He is good, so how can we even know what bad is? Who are you oh man to question God....when you preach against abortion or homosexuality etc?
Can the clay say to the potter why did you make those sodomites? Etc etc
Flowers vs Calvin and Flowers got his tail kicked . The truth will set you free
Nah
check out keith Daniels.
The videos picture should be Leighton punching a strawman Calvin as that would be more accurate.
Where did he strawman in the video?
It's funny Leighton talks about not trying to divide a church or the kingdom yet Leighton's ministry is devoted ENTIRELY to doing just that? TRYING to refute a biblical doctrine like Calvinism is a total mistake. It's a doctrine he obviously disdains and, having listened to him numerous times as here, continues to misrepresent and has NEVER understood. But devoting you're ENTIRE life's work to dividing the kingdom rather than uniting is very very troubling. But how is that fulfilling the great commision? If you want to hear a proper Calvinist understanding and Leighton being corrected listen to this debate: ruclips.net/video/2V0YpZ0FnSQ/видео.html
Calvinism isnt a biblical doctrine. It wasn't even around until the 5th century. Its a heresy that makes God the author of evil and man exempt from any responsibility before Him.
He’s not dividing the Kingdom, he’s EXPOSING THE DIVIDE THAT ALREADY EXISTS!
He’s exposing the divide that Augustine started by bringing in Gnosticism into the church.
No early church fathers held to his or Calvin’s or the reformers todays beliefs on man not having freewill.
And neither does the apostle Paul and the whole counsel of scripture support Reformed theology unless you twist the scriptures.
I praise God for Leighton’s ministry in exposing this divide that’s existed for 1500 years!
@@apilkey: I see you have a playlist on "free will" and the very first video in it is by Jesse Morrell, who is an open-theist and sinless perfectionist heretic. This is the problem with people suffering with Anti-Calvinist Derangement Syndrome, they'll agree with anyone including heretics and enemies of the faith as long as they share a hatred of Calvinism.
When your "Calvinism" playlist is mostly made up of videos from Gene Kim, Steven Anderson and Kevin Thompson you need to seriously examine yourself. I actually feel kind of bad to see 1 or 2 vids by Mike Winger in there, he deserves better than being lumped in with KJVOnlyists.
Christopher Smith thanks for your thoughts, are you assuming I agree with all of the videos on my playlist?
My playlist absolutely does not consist solely of people I agree with, rather various opinions of which I take the good and throw out the bad testing the spirits.
That’s why I’m a bible believer and don’t follow man or any man-made doctrines.
I would suggest you don’t falsely assume what peoples beliefs are based off their playlists as that’s rather foolish.
The main thing I see with Calvinist’s however is that they regard their favourite Calvinist teachers as almost infallible and wouldn’t dare question anything they say.
You’ll notice I also have some videos of John Piper and RC Sproul that doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say obviously.
You would do well to take the good and throw out the bad with those teachers as well instead of blindly following fallible man.
I won’t make any assumptions of your beliefs but would encourage you to call every man a liar but the word of God true.
Two things that never go together: Calvinism and context.
The Arminian view cannot be true......I understand why people want to believe that salvation works that way because it seems more fair that everyone has an opportunity. But life is not fair. Some people live under communism and dictatorships where the Gospel is not even allowed to be preached. Some people get killed in automobiles at 10 or 15 years old....others die young from cancer. Some are killed very young in wars; others are murdered. We are either predestined and protected by God until we come to faith in Christ; or were just the luckiest people on the planet that we happened to come to faith in Christ before we got run over by a bus. Predestination has to be true.....the free will idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny.....God chooses His Elect before the Foundation of the world. Thats what guardian angels are for; ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation....humans will always hate predestination but when analyzed it has to be the truth. Otherwise you just believe in luck....which actually makes the Arminian view just as unfair and instead puts humans and luck in control; rather than God.
Not to mention that if God just left the building of His church up to human free will; God would not be in complete control of human history. Jesus said, "I will build My Church!" Jesus builds the church and He is not dependent on the will of humans to do so.....
Trying to dismantle calvinism is like trying to dismantle the bible, guess what you cant. Solio de Gloria.
They are false prophets . What dose the Word Of God say about wolves in sheep clothing .
That’s funny hearing him complain about misrepresentation lol. Flowers builds such a straw man out of Calvinism that the only way I can even conceive of him ever truly understanding the reformed faith is if I assume that he’s intentionally misrepresenting it today. Both sides do this. But unless you’re going to stop you don’t really have the right to complain about it.
It seems that, the more you quote Calvinists in general and Calvin in particular on the theology that bears his name, the more you will be accused of strawmanning. I suppose Calvin himself was a hypercalvinist; if you disagree with him on any point, surely you're not implying that you yourself are a wiser scholar than him, that you understand his theology even better than he did?
You’d have to provide an example of what you mean. Hyper Calvinists believe in double predestination and believe that God forces people to do evil acts. So no, Calvin was not a hyper Calvinist. But give me an example of something and I’ll tell you if it’s strawmanning or not.
@@quinnpeterson2716 "Hypercalvinism" is nothing but a convenient label Calvinists use to disassociate themselves from the uglier, difficult to biblically defend, but totally consistent, aspects of their theology. Calvin was indeed a hypercalvinist, and he was more than happy to write about it.
"They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. (...) It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7)
Of course Calvin goes on to attempt to deflect the actual implications of the arguments he's making:
“So God in ordaining the fall of man had an end most just and right which holds the name of sin in abhorrence. Though I affirm that He ordained it so, I do not allow that He is properly the author of sin.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.123)
This amounts to a "I said so" argument. Calvin is making assertions and then refusing to follow them through based on the logic he uses to make them.
"It is therefore wicked and calumnious to say that I make the fall of man one of the works of God. But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.123-124)
It is "wicked and calumnious" to hold Calvin accountable for his own theological and philosophical arguments, and when pressed sufficiently on the matter he openly admits he can't justify it. Calvinists are so invested in their theology that when they encounter a sufficiently imposing problem in it, they will begin twisting Scripture to suit their views, not their views to suit Scripture. In this way, John 3:16 and other verses speaking of God's universal love for the world and His desire that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth become problems.
Well it’s obviously impossible to argue with someone that creates their own definitions for things. I guess I’d have the right to call you a full on Pelagian at this point lol. You can’t disregard the differentiation between double predestination just because you don’t like the idea of reprobates.
Not only that, you don’t get away from it in your theology unless you’re an open theist or a universalist. See, if anyone ends up in hell, we account for it by saying that God had a plan and a purpose for their wickedness and their just punishment. You say that God created them “trying his hardest” to save them but failing over and over again. In which case not only is He not omnipotent but His omniscience would mean that He failed to be omnibeneveleant. Because if He knew I would do wicked things and end up in hell without any purpose and He created me anyway, knowing He was too weak to save me, that’s not very good. You have to practice following your theology’s implications through.
@@quinnpeterson2716 I'm not coming up with my own definitions for anything. I'm simply being honest about what Calvinism is, straight from the horse's mouth. Reprobation and double-predestination are both very shaky areas theologically speaking, and many Calvinists don't affirm either. Your argument was, and I quote, that "Calvin was not a hyper Calvinist." He was. I have provided quotations from Calvin himself directly showing that he was. If you still say he isn't, the ball's in your court to prove it with more quotations. If you claim to be a Calvinist but differ with him theologically, why is that?
You started this argument claiming that Flowers and other non-Calvinists misrepresent the Calvinist position, but your representation of the non-Calvinist position is not accurate at all. The non-Calvinist view is absolutely not that God tries. God sent His only begotten Son. God has made a legitimate offer to every single human being alive. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. He is not willing that any should perish. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. He has made salvation available through His Son, and if you won't come to Him, your death is entirely on your own head.
It's like a man who is sitting on death row, awaiting execution, refusing to accept a pardon. If he accepts that pardon, he cannot claim any credit for it. He could have accepted it and lived; the power of the governor offering him that pardon is not reliant in any way upon whether or not he accepts it. The justness of his judgement and sentence to death are not reliant on him accepting that pardon. He has received an offer of forgiveness for his crimes. If he rejects it, does that invalidate the authority of the judge who sentenced him somehow? If he accepts it, can he somehow claim credit for being offered, and accepting, an unmerited and unearned pardon? Do you think God is only capable of being sovereign if He determines every single action anything or anyone ever takes?
Another deeply troubling thing about Calvinism is that so many Calvinists are so deeply immersed in their theology that they will stray into dangerous waters when trying to defend it. You should be deeply cautious about the language you use in your attack on the non-Calvinist position, especially the way you describe God.
Leighton's logic is not even philosophically consistent at times. It certainly isn't theologically consistent. It's very sad that people will choose to listen to this rather than consider the excellent reasoning of Luther, Calvin or Johnathan Edwards.
Calvin the murderer of Servetus? No murderer has eternal life so where is Calvin?
Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing less... God's supremacy in electing whom He will for His glory is all over the NT.
Show me the Scripture that proves you are chosen? So, what is your salvation based on? Since there are no Scripture to prove you are chosen.Chance or good works. Should cause you to rethink what you believe.
Peter Harris
The Bible is the Gospel. Not Calvinism. That means is impossible for our God to give mankind the Freewill to chose or reject Him. God Bless you. John 3:16-18
@@rustymcalister 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5:
_For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction._
Paul clearly believed the Thessalonian church he was writing to were:
1)Loved by God
2)Chosen by God to believe the Gospel
3)Had not only received the Gospel with words but with power, with the Holy Spirit, and with deep conviction.
_Since there are no Scripture to prove you are chosen._
The Scripture has just been provided to you. Now it's up-to you to decide whether to love the truth or to ignore it.
(42:42) Once again, Leighton mangles Matt. 23:37 to fit his soteriology. And no one corrects him. Smh. It’s a low view of Scripture that causes one to continually do this.
mbe141 maybe you can explain it 😄
@@JonathanGrandt two weeks go by and he still makes no attempt to explain it.
I guess it's that "high" view of scripture which prevents him from actually talking about scripture... at all.
So... I’ll just make the point mbe141 was trying to make though he didn’t really make it clear.
Leighton misquotes Matthew 23:37. When using it as an anti Calvinism text, it is often misquoted. So it’s not necessarily an anti Calvinism text, since the verse actually says “I’ve longed to gather YOUR CHILDREN together... etc.... but you were not willing.”
It’s used as an anti Calvinist text because of the “not willing” portion and yet it is misquoted to leave out “your children”.
Obviously there’s a difference between “I’ve longed to gather you but you were not willing” and “I’ve longed to gather your children but you were not willing.” One would imply that God wanted to gather the people and the people were not willing, and the other would imply that God wanted to gather the children and the “parents” were not willing.
Now I don’t see how this verse really refutes Calvinism unless you claim “not willing” is Free Will and thereby hindering God. The Calvinist would say God sovereignly willed the leadership of Israel to not permit Him to gather the people. Ehhh. Well ok. But I’m sure that’s what they’d say.
At any rate Calvinism is heretical whether leighton misquoted the verse or not. I don’t think he helps himself by misquoting it but his overall point is still the same, that God wanted something that the people did not permit. I don’t personally really think it would stop a Calvinist in his tracks though. They seriously have a (bad) answer for everything and they will never change no matter how much the Lord longs for it.
Leighton can be right 99.9% of the time and misquote one verse and that’s what his critics will jump on. Go figure.
@@JonathanGrandt good point, however, as you state, the relevant bits of the verse concerning humans opposing Christ's desire is upheld.
Considering Jerusalem is being addressed as a metaphorical entity here, which would render "your children" to simply mean the people who live There, the meaning is retained.
It’s not so much about deep thought !! it’s about what scripture says about God’s purpose in glorifying himself!
Lol 😂